Monday, January 31, 2011

Don't Ban Smoking

The smoking ban proposed by Rep. Susan Westrom (LD-Lexington) is a terrible idea. Westrom couches her desire in the cloak of better health and non-smokers rights. She is terribly wrong.

I smoked. I quit. I started back. I quit. I have survived kidney cancer. Studies told me the incidence of kidney cancer is higher in smokers. Kidney cancer is more likely in the obese. Kidney cancer is more prevalent in those with high stress levels. Kidney cancer is more likely in people with high blood pressure. DNA contributes too. My first cousin died three years ago. Undetected kidney cancer led to her early demise. I found mine. I am blessed. I know I am.

I tell this story to tell you this. Government cannot protect us from everything. Government's obligations are finite although those in authority want ever-expanding authority over every single aspect of our lives. If the apparatchiks would concern themselves about Liberty and how to promote it in our lives, the world and Kentucky would be a better place.

Cigarette smoke stinks. I don't like being around it. No one smokes on our job site now except in clearly designated areas. We made the decision to address the needs of our company. We did so because our fire insurance company advised us to prohibit smoking on the job. It was an economics decision and nothing else. Free people make good decisions that way.

The great debate on a smoking ban will begin soon. Truth be told, if the well-wishers in the General Assembly want to help us combat the evils of smoking, pass an outright ban on the sale and use of cigarettes. The decision to ban the product eliminates any further discussion. The problem that exists with this path is the subsequent loss of tax revenue, and no one in government has the courage to take the step to ban the sale and use of cigarettes because they want to spend the money so they can tell us what great things they do for us. By the way, please take note of the decrease in tax revenue from cigarette sales. Higher taxes results in lower revenues in every single case. A logical mind would decide that higher taxes is a very bad idea, but that is for another time.

Don't get me wrong. I know we need government. My life was saved because we have a great teaching hospital at UK. Government funds many of the functions of the hospital, and I am eternally grateful for it. I would spend more money on the work at UK's hospital, but I am letting my gratitude overrule all other considerations.

The thing I don't like is the hypocrisy of Rep. Westrom. She wants a smoking ban, but she wants the tobacco tax money so she can look good at the next ribbon cutting.

Either ban cigarettes altogether, or shut up.

I advise the latter.

3 comments:

  1. An alternative to smoking bans

    If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
    A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?

    There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

    As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

    Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

    Thomas Laprade
    Thunder Bay, Ont.

    For additional info
    http://thetruthisalie.com
    http://fightingback.homestead.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. ’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
    World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.



    What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?



    PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.



    It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...



    I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.



    Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?



    They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!



    The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?



    Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.



    Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?



    The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.



    Why not speak up earlier?



    As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.



    Le Parisien

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

    Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
    Published In: Environment & Climate News
    Publication Date: July 1, 2008
    Publisher:

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html

    myth-of-second-hand-smoke

    http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke

    BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax

    http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/bs-alert-the-third-hand-smoke-hoax?render=print

    The thirdhand smoke scam

    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke-scam.html

    Heart attacks Frauds and Myths..

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/

    New study: No evidence linking SHS and lung cancer

    http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-study-no-evidence-linking-shs-and.html

    Surgeon General's Office Again Misrepresents and Distorts the Science in Report Press Release; Why the Need to Lie to the American Public?


    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html


    And for your information, Regina Benjamin is on the Board of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, J&J's "philanthropic arm". She received a $500,000.00 grant from the MacArthur Foundation 08, which I guess she has not returned! The Justice Department should be looking at her involvement and her pushing nicotine replacement for J&J! How she could have been named Surgeon General should be investigated as criminal!


    B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

    http://grendelreport.posterous.com/bs-study-600000-people-die-worldwide-from-sec

    Green Hell Blog
    How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them
    http://greenhellblog.com/2010/12/12/surgeon-general-jumps-the-shark/

    Anti-Smoking Lie of the Year

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/29/anti-smoking-lie-of-the-year#commentcontainer

    Radon Gas No. 1 cause of lung cancer in non-smokers

    http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/home/No-1-Cause-Of-Lung-Cancer-In-Non-Smokers-Many-Unaware-105130059.html

    Lung cancer in smokers may be different from lung cancer in nonsmokers: Vancouver study
    By PAMELA FAYERMAN, Vancouver Sun


    Although doctors and scientists have suspected for some time that there were different biological mechanisms underlying lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers, the B.C. study is said to be the first to find whole regions of mutations.



    Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Lung+cancer+smokers+different+from+lung+cancer+nonsmokers

    ReplyDelete