Government Power, the real Health Hazard The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation - from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke. Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously negligible, such as outdoor public parks. The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on. All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour. That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

Now that Pfizer finally got caught using illegal marketing practices, these smoking bans will probably go down in history as one of the greatest marketing scams ever by using tax exempt political action committees calling themselves "charities". Here's the beginning of the ban movement in the USA. www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912 Here are the instructions from Johnson and Johnsons' (makers of cessation products) RWJ Foundation for their tax exempt political action committees. (charities?) Note on page seven the "inside-out" provision, banning smoking on patios AFTER business owners spend thousands to build them for their smoking customers, clearly showing that they have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN for local issues or businesses. www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf Here's the "model" ban from page eight of the instruction book. A prewritten "smoking ban for dummies" from page eight of the tobacco control handbook. Just fill in the blanks naming your community, the name of your leaders, and the width of your sidewalks: http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229

A solution to this political situation about smoking bans. Owners can put a sign in their doors: 'This is a smoking environment.' 'This is a non-smoking environment.' This solution gives the owners and customers choices. Isn't this what America is all about??

Interesting solution. How is it fair to those of us who pay the healthcare cost of smoking? (Everyone - through high Medicaid, Medicare and Health Insurance bills we pay to cover the healthcare costs of sick smokers and second-hand smokers). I get smoker's rights as long as they take care not to deprive non-smokers of their right to healthy air (employees of smoking joints included). AND, as long as the pay the FULL cost of their addiction. Australia just figured out that it would save it's NATION $1billion if it cut the smoking rate by just 1/3d. That's a lot of money we're pouring into taking care of smoker's health. Example. 90% of those with lung cancer, one of the leading causes of cancer, are or have been smokers. A significant number of the 10% who weren't were regularly exposed to second hand smoke. Reducing smoking would directly impact the amount of lung cancer we treat. And...before you go there...the measly $25/month extra that some (very few) smokers pay for their health insurance in no way covers the actual medical costs of this most deadly and physically expensive habit. When you choose to get to smoke and relinquish health insurance, or smoke and pay the full cost increment....then I'll say smokers are taking full RESPONSIBILITY for their RIGHT to smoke and have earned the access. Till then, I don't have any problem with those who represent the people acting to protect the people's right to not pay the price - healthwise or physically - of those few around them who want to smoke.

Mad about all that money we've spent to bail out AIG, CitiGroup....wall street. Well, yeh. It's getting on my nerves being expected to foot the tax bill for someone else's personal choices...specially bad ones...specially if I'm not given a voice in the decision. And I'm just as mad about being asked to foot the bill for my neighbor's bad healthcare choices. Smoking costs taxpayers in the US a whopping $300 billion dollars annually, or 1,000 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE AIG BONUSES. (http://www.pr-inside.com/aig-bonuses-dwarfed-by-taxpayer-subsidies-for-smokers-senators-told-smokers-cost-to-taxpayers-is-1000-times-hi-r1125060.htm) To quote that movie - I'm mad as &$*** and I'm not going to take it anymore. I fully support any government representing me to preserve my right and access to clean breathin' air....and to not have to bail-out the hundreds of thousands of smokers in the country who are asking me to foot their healthcare bill. If they can't get it under control on their own, I'm ok with us doing it for them.