St. Paul, Minnesota has just adopted a smoking ban. I know that’s not terribly uncommon anymore, but it sure seems cowardly. Cowardly because the folks pushing these initiatives won’t do what should plainly be the Right Thing (from their perspective) and outlaw tobacco.
Of course, they would reply that Big Tobacco is too powerful; big money lobbyists. But it sure seems there are some pretty deep pockets behind the anti-smoking folks, too. And if Big Tobacco’s lobbyists are too powerful, it’s only because they are able to sway politicians.
And if politicians are easy to sway or not able to be trusted to rise above the crass temptation of lobbyists, should we be trusting them to curtail our liberties at all?
But the real nasty problem? St. Paul is in Ramsey county. Ramsey county already has a smoking ban which had compromises with bar and restaurant owners that allowed them to take measures (separate areas, for example) that would allow smoking in certain circumstances. Business owners in Saint Paul spent many thousands of dollars to meet these requirements. that money was just rendered wasted and useless.
Hennepin county had a ban similar to the new, more restrictive St. Paul ban, but business owners, bartenders, and waitress lost so much money (and often their jobs), that they recently softened the ban to match Ramsey county’s more lenient pattern.
That didn’t stop the St.Paul city council (well, 4/7th of them) from jumping on last year’s failed bandwagon. Saint Paul is already struggling. The fact is an awful lot of folks who go out to bars and restaurants smoke. And it has been proven that non-smokers will not make up the difference (by what happened in Hennepin county). They’re going to kill downtown Saint Paul again.
Can anyone explain this: if we allow the government to do this, what can possibly stand in the way of banning french fries? Or whole milk?
I dare these politicians who said something like “we must ban smoking because the risk of possible harm is greater then the risk to personal freedom” to replace the word “smoking” with “abortion”. How is this argument anything but purest hypocrisy?
These comments, by the way, from an asthmatic non-smoker. Thanks for nothing, [Dave Thune][2].
[1]: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/13602459.htm
[2]: http://www.stpaul.gov/council/wards/ward2.html
You sound a bit misinformed on this important issue, Ken.
I welcome you to visit the American Lung Association of Minnesota blog for more details. Please feel free to see what other local bloggers are saying as well.
Bob Moffitt
Communications Director, ALAMN
It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been misinformed, or even just plain wrong, but, Bob, in what way am I?
I have a pretty simple perspective, I think. Tobacco is legal. And some folks want to use it when they’re out.
As an asthmatic myself (quite serious asthma, actually), I have complete freedom to patronize or not patronize any bar or restaurant. As a former busboy, waiter, and bartender, I could choose to work somewhere or not. Second hand smoke could only affect me if I let it.
I do understand the “cost to society” issue. I think it a bad tack to take, because I don’t think society should be the safety net when people willfully harm themselves by smoking. (Which I understand is not a very popular stance.)
If it’s truly so bad, outlaw it. If it’s not, well, folks make dumb choices all the time. How far would you go? Or better, where would you stop? What can be your ‘line’? I’m really asking and when I ask about whole milk or fries, is there truly a logical difference? What is it?
Don’t let me remain uninformed! :)
BTW, I did just take a peek at your blog, Bob. I guess you can see that I pretty plainly disagree with the strib position of the necessity of government protecting the “employees and patrons”.
Also, I found this very interesting: “Council Member Dave Thune, a pack-a-day smoker himself, deserves praise for both leadership and persistence. Nearly two years ago, he started to fight for a full smoking ban; he continued to push the issue despite considerable opposition from constituents in his ward, which is heavily populated with bars and restaurants.”
Hmph. I always understood that a representative should represent his constituents. Call me old fashioned.
Last, and I’ll give you this even though we disagree :), you’re blog is rendering poorly in Firefox and on Mac’s Safari. It just means the page’s underlying code isn’t very good and will not be properly viewable by some.
Thanks. I’ve had trouble opening the ALAMN blog on my Mac at home, now I know why.
Regarding clean indoor air for hospitality workers and “their choice” to work in a smoky environment, let me explain further.
The question we should ask is not so much “should bar and restaurant workers choose between a paycheck and their health?” as is it why do some people have to choose and others don’t? Office and retail workers in Minnesota don’t have to choose. We have been covered by the Minnesota Clean Indoor Act for three decades. It’s a state law. Unfortunately, it left too many Minnesota workers behind. It’s time to change this, at any level of government we can until the state gets it right.
We are not suggesting anything new. There are other examples of common-sense worker safety regulations all around us. Have you ever seen a sign at a construction site that sas “Hard hats may be worn, if you choose?” Should mine safety equipment be “optional?” Shall we offer patrons a choice of restaurant that have — or have not — passed a food safety inspection?
Smoking bans are regulations, very limited in their scope and purpose, that immediately improve indoor air quality. They also have the added benefit of helping many smokers quit, which most resonable people agree is a good thing.
Which brings us to your main question — why not just make them illegal? Because that would be repeating the mistakes of the past, namely, the Volstead Act/Prohibition. It would also “criminalize” the sale, posession and use of tobacco. We at the ALAMN have never been “anti-smoker.”
As for where we stop, that’s easy. Look at our name — we are concerned about lung health, not cheesburgers, fried foods and whole milk. We work to keep the air clean, both outdoors and indoors. You don’t have to fear a “slippery slope” with the ALAMN.
I appreciate the continued dialog. I need to keep this particular reply brief, but here’s a few quickies based on your last comments:
To the question “why do some people have to choose and others don’t”, I would reply that it may be a proprietor’s desire to provide a meeting place for smokers. Many bars and restaurants have been exactly that. I simply suggest that any potential employee has the opportunity to say to themselves “Hmm, they smoke here. Do I want to be in that environment.” I can’t decide to be a waiter at a strip club and then decide that it’s not right that I be surrounded by behaviour I disagree with.
When you note (and I have no doubt to your sincerity) that “we at the ALAMN have never been ‘anti-smoker'”, it can hardly be seen as anything but comical from my perspective. It’s a little like “we’re pro soccer player, we just don’t want you to play soccer”.
And, truly, I don’t fear ALAMN will pursue banning (for example) fatty foods, but your efforts are putting in to legislation precedent on which those laws can logically be made. Which I think is a dreadful effect of these efforts.
If fact, you have demonstrated this principle in your very comments. You note that certain smoking prohibitions exist, thus providing a reasonable foundation for ones like that which now exist in Saint Paul. You’ve provided a perfect, real-life expression of “slippery slope”; a slow, progressive increase in government’s scope (progressive like cancer is progressive, IMO).
In the meantime, some folks who were willing to work in an environment with smoke won’t have to worry about it any more. They’ll lose their jobs. (I’ve spend a sick amount of time watching the Hennepin county hearings.)
And all those folks who wanted to smoke in place X, will not go to place X. And place Y might be out of the city. It might be back home on their living room couch, with their young children at their feet.
Your next frontier?
One last thing, Bob… you visited my site with your first comment telling me I’m “misinformed”. I’m open to that possibiliity, but so far it looks like we simply disagree. I think it fair to ask you to back up that statement or retract it.
Bad choice of words…disagree it is!
Bob Moffitt (aka “BobFromTheALA” and “bobALMN”) has an interesting way of focusing on facts and honesty… NOT! Heh.. check out his action at:
http://www.community-media.com/wordpress/?p=100
Meanwhile, he’s also written some interesting things here. Let’s see if he can respond a bit more rationally this time.
Bob wrote: “The question we should ask is not so much “should bar and restaurant workers choose between a paycheck and their health?”
I respond: First of all Bob, there has never yet to this date been a scientific study showing a clear long term harm to the health of anyone from the low levels of smoke exposure that would be encountered in any decently ventilated modern business establishment. If you know of any to the contrary, please feel free to post them. Or, if you prefer, you can simply call me a “tobacco industry apologist” or some such slur and pretend you don’t have to answer.
You go on to write about hard hats and mine safety. Bob, there are thousands of undisputed and clearly documented cases of workers being killed because they weren’t wearing hard hats or using safety equipment. There are NO undisputed and clearly documented cases of workers dying from secondary smoke. Sure, I know you can pull up two or three cases of throat cancer and such out of the tens of thousands you like to lightly claim die every year, but people get throat cancer sometimes withOUT smoking or being exposed to smoke: out of millions of hospitality workers in a smoke free world there would STILL be a few cases of such so producing your two or three anecdotes is meaningless. You know that of course, but you do it anyway. In my book Bob, that counts as a lie.
You mention food and sanitation laws in restaurants. Again, there are MANY documented cases of deaths from food poisoning and such. No questions as to whether “Gee, maybe this guy woulda died from botulism even if he HADN’T eaten the botulism food down at Bouncin’ Bob’s Burgers.” And quite aside from that: food sanitation dangers are hidden from the public… which is why we explicitly have chosen to allow for the government to protect us. In the case of smoking any such perceived danger is NOT hidden: a place either allows it, or it doesn’t. No need for an iron glove to protect an innocent public.
You state “smoking bans immediately improve indoor air quality.” I’m sure they do sometimes…. but sometimes they lower it. How? Because without the smoke in the air the proprietors of an establishment can decrease ventilation and air filtration with no one noticing.
Bob, air quality tests on U.S. aircraft in the late 1980s showed that there was almost a 100% increase in “Fungal Colony Forming Units” in airplanes that banned smoking. How much higher such units would be in the moldy and damp atmospheres of smoking banned pubs has never been determined. (Report to Congress: Airline Cabin Air Quality. U.S. D.O.T. 1989)
The next time you go out to a smoke-banned venue, breathe deep and enjoy the extra fungi pouring down into your lungs. If you’re enjoying some fish and chips, savor the extra dead skin cells of your fellow diners that are flaking off and settling down on your meal rather than being sucked up by ventilation or filtrated out of the air: after all, cannibalism can be fun!
And finally, if a ban is passed and there’s an outbreak of airborne avian flu, be sure to thank the ALA and smoke-banning laws for helping its spread. The piles of invisible body bags containing all the heaps of invisible corpses due to secondary smoke will suddenly be joined by stacks of ones far more solid.
It’s good to see that you claim you’re not an “anti-smoker” Bob. Does that mean you’re against forcing smokers to pay unreasonable and extortionate taxes? You’re against employment discrimination against smokers? You’re in favor of providing comfortable lounges where smokers can relax and enjoy themselves with their friends while smoking? You’re in favor of taking the money being used to portray smokers as dirty smelly dangerous outcasts and putting it instead into actual medical research designed to help smokers (of course that last item might cause a bit of job difficulty for you yourself….)
Well, Bob, I think I’ve responded to you a bit more thoroughly than if I had simply palmed you off as a “Big Pharma Apologist” or an “Antismoking Lobby Mouthpiece,” so let’s see a rational response from you to my points.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
http://www.Antibrains.com
Again, a couple if quick notes.
First, I want to be very careful and clear that though I disagree with Bob, I neither know him nor have an opinion about him. I’m interested in the topic, but not in being personally unkind. Just so my perspective on ‘tone’ is out there.
I do still wonder about the investment by bar and restaurant owners who attempted to comply with the Ramsey county regulations. Are they just outta luck?
Also, I know this is a broad brush, but aren’t folks who back concepts like this smoking ban generally from the left side of the American political spectrum? How do they reconcile supporting government’s intrusion on personal freedom in this case when they would oppose it strongly in other ‘hot button’ cases?
Ken,
Bob Moffit at ALAMN is really nothing more than a lackey of the ALA. This organization has received huge funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Pfizer and Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals to promote smoking bans. The reason for this is that by scaring people into not smoking or making it more difficult for them to do so, they are able to increase the sales of their outrageously overpriced smoking nostrums such as Niccoret etc.
The WHO, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, OSHA, Cato Institute, and a major study of over 19,000 patients with heart conditions have all proven conclusively that there is no threat from second hand smoke of any measurable significance.
Mr. Moffit and those of his ilk have lifted their fear tactics to ban smoking from the king of the anti smokers. His name is Adolph Hitler. I am sure, Bob, you have heard the mantra of the antis about needing to “do it for the children.” This concept was first introduced in 1926 by Hitler in his book Mein Kampf. Clearly, Moffit has no real understanding of what property rights are about, and will run roughshod over them in spite of the fact that doing so is a clear violation of our constitution. Unlike Moffit, I have been in the hospitality business for over 40 years. In that time we were always shorthanded by some degree. If an employee chooses to work in a smoke free environment there are many none smoking establishments that would love to hire them. So the argument that the ban will protect the workers is total nonsense.
Sincerely,
Bob Halfpenny
V.P. Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans
Well, I really hesitated before before approving the last comment. Only the middle paragraph and the concern about property rights, which I share, carried it through.
Here’s the reason: I completely understand where Bob H. is coming from, but rhetorically, the post opens up the field to “look, he’s says I’m Hitler” and “he’s calling me a lackey” type comments which IMO just deteriorate the conversation.
Boy, can I see from the comments here (and some offline) that there is a lot of frustration behind this topic. I can see why. One side sees their lives and livelihoods tinkered with and the other hopes to protect lives.
I am willing to ‘allow’ people the best motives possible – literally for the sake of argument – in hopes we can settle in on what some of the facts and positions are. Certainly we hear little publically about the idea that second-hand smoke may indeed not be dangerous. I think that’s valuable info. Certainly there is effect on personal property. That’s important. I hope if there are further coments that they’ll be towards those ends (and related).
Thanks, everyone, for making this interesting.
If you’re interested in learning more, you should look at funding and spending of the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT).
Also take a look at the activity on Dr Michael Siegel’s blog:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
Ken,
Sorry you’ve attracted the interests of the least informed yet well funded American Lung [Association]
Here’s a link to the $99 million grant they received from Nicoderm affiliated Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
http://www.rwjf.org/research/researchdetail.jsp?id=2002&ia=143
Bob, or the Lunger as I refer to him also tries to plead ignorance to this government testing which proves secondhand smoke levels are 152 times safer than OSHA regulations.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/government-environmental-health.html
And before the Lunger tries to say there is no OSHA standard for secondhand smoke read this:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/though-they-tryand-tryand-trythey-just.html
Feel free to contact me if you have other special interest[s] trying to argue the indefensible.
Ed: Moderated *very* slightly for tone.
Thank you moderator.
By the way Michael McFadden makes some great points, in particular about the fact that with smoking bans in place an establishment is not likely to install air filtration equipment. Thus the air quality in a now non-smoking establishment is likely to be more hazardous (biologically etc.) than a smoking establishment with state of the art air filtration equipment.
http://clean-air-quality.com/_wsn/page2.html
mmmm doesn’t the fresh smell of mold, bacteria, viruses, and sweat have a more distinct aroma now that cigarette smoking is banned. Good job Nicoderm!
Ken, I’ll respond to your comments. The other gentleman already know me and the position of the American Lung Association of Minnesota, and I know their beliefs (strange as they may be), so there is no need to clog your blog with the back and forth.
I believe owners that installed walls and extra ventillation to allow smoking in their businesses did so to get around the Ramsey County ordinance, not to comply with it. The ordinance did not “force” any owner to make these changes. Keep in mind that the St. Paul City Council twice before passed a comprehensive ordinance that was vetoed by Mayor Kelly, so this ordinance could not have come as a surprise to anyone paying attention to the shifting political winds in St. Paul. It was not a matter of “luck,” but a business decision they chose to make.
As for the political spectrum question, it is moot. I don’t speak for “ban supporters,” I speak for the ALAMN, a nonpartisan organization. We are neither “right, left or center,” but solely focused on improving the lung health of all Minnesotans.
Marcus, thanks for understanding. Oh, and you’d better be careful about the mold, etc. talk. They’ll force everyone to buy the equipment anyway! :)
Bob, thanks for still being around even when it must be difficult. To your comments above, I wonder if the difference between “comply” and “get around” is just a matter of perspective. It seems they could only “get around” by, in some fashion, complying.
It sure does seems there is some actual hard data to suggest the bans might not be that effective, which makes me even more reluctant about the intusion into property rights. What do you think about the studies/data some other folks have presented here?
In the end, we are all free to believe as we will. The medical, engineering and scientific community all concur that secondhand smoke IS harmful, and that prohibiting indoor smoking is the best way to deal with secondhand smoke.
These gentlemen choose to believe otherwise.
There certainly is hard data that shows the Twin Cities bans has had no significant economic impact (actually, sales went up in Hennepin County), so the economic issue should be off the table.
We believe this is clearly a public health, not a property rights issue, and most people (including a number of smokers) agree.
Sure, we’re all free to believe whatever, but don’t you think it’s an overstatement to say “medical, engineering and scientific community all concur…”. That’s seems to be simply false. One of the links above seems to provide at least one little bit of raw data that contradicts the need for measures like that which the ALAMN support.
The hard data that shows “no significant economic impact” is based on unemployment figures, isn’t it? Certainly there are some hospitality jobs which don’t fit within parameters unemployment figures would be expected to catch. I know I never dealt in any fashion with the government as I moved from one hospitality job to another. And to the many folks who have lost jobs and businesses, certainly your assertion rings hollow.
But here’s the ‘tell’ to me: “We believe this is clearly a public health, not a property rights issue”. But it is not either/or. It is both.
And the challenge facing government is how to balance interests for the best outcome of all involved. And if you are really only seeing this issue through the one lens, and even worse, if that is the only or primary lens council members see this issue through, then this (IMO) excessive, unbalanced ban is indeed almost an unavoidable result. But can hardly be seen as desirable or measured.
And, man, if we’re only dealing in the realm of “belief”, should we be quite literally forcing our beliefs upon others?
Anyone want to hear from a smoker? I was the first one to tell you (with hand on hip and head moving from side to side) that I should be able to smoke wherever I wanted and that my money was as good as any non-smokers. Guess what, for the first time in my life I left a restaurant in Burnsville because the “Non-Smoking” section was one big cloud of smoke. Why? Because 6 months after quitting, I realize how ugly the habit really is. I have a small child whose breathing issues are but a mere fraction of those experienced by Ken Martin, but yet I still smoked? Never in the house or car, but even to have it lingering on my clothes? Nice. Anyway, since quitting, I have also realized how rude I was as a smoker. I thought nothing of standing right outside the entrance of a mall, smoking, and with a visible look of “bring it on” on my face…to all of you with respiratory issues I apologize, Ken included. It is still new to me to admit this, but I find myself avoiding establishments that allow smoking because it DOES affect everyone. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to rush into a mall with my five year olds face buried in my shoulder so that she would not be attacked by a cloud of smoke that would likely result in the need for a few puffs of albuterol. Bath & Body works spraying Cucumber Melon body spray into the mall to “lure” me in bugs me too if anyone cares. I don’t think any one person can tell another to quit smoking, they have to learn it on their own…but until they do, they should be mindful of what they make everyone else breathe in the mean time. But what do I know anyway? I am not bashing smokers…I was one for 17 years, and I would never dream of telling someone to stop, but I would dream of telling them they should go outside so I can enjoy my fajita roll up at Applebees without the side of smoke. PS This is my first “blog” ever, so be nice.
Hi Lisa! :)
I tend to avoid smoky areas now, too. But the big point is I can. I can choose to be a patron or even employee of any place I want. But what about the folks that either don’t care or actually want to smoke, or the bar and restaurant owners who want to have a place where people can? They are being told how to use their own property in relation to a perfectly legal activity.
I don’t want some government authorities swooping in before me making it a world I prefer over the different but legal desires of the property owner.
You and I can always simply choose to go somewhere else. But my “right” to be able to visit an establishment does not trump the right of the owner to run it how he wants. Going back to the strip club analogy, how silly it would be for me to say “I really miss the burgers they had there, but I think the nudity is wrong, so I want the nudity to stop so I can go in and enjoy my burger.”
The business owner who once could to choose to cater or not cater to non-smokers can no longer choose. Now they need to choose to lay people off or close down, because, perhaps unfortunately, people who desire to smoke make up too large a percentage of the business. Now they find their investment in equipment to keep the air clean in their establishments is virtually wasted money.
There was a smoking ban in effect which made allowances for those establishments that would be most harmed to still operate. Hennepin county just relaxed their ban from something like Saint Paul’s new strict standard to Ramsey county’s more lenient standard because of the impact on business. Saint Paul is running headlong into failed territory. There are other options.
I never thought about stuff like this before I married. I would have just picked the side I sympathized with the most and stuck with it.
My beloved has taught me by impressive example to think more.
And as long as smoking is a legal activity, I’m thinking it is not about smokers’ rights or non-smokers’ rights.
Property Rights. One of those unsung heroes of the constitution. One of the generally unseen and uncredited reasons the American Dream is possible.
We didn’t fall backwards into this wildly successful experiment. There were a set of rules in place that made it all work.
We can only give up so many of them before it turns into a nightmare.