[C-U Smokefree] Re: CU-Smokefree digest, Vol 1 #26 - 1 msg
Theotskl at aol.com
Theotskl at aol.com
Tue Nov 18 09:44:45 CST 2003
Hi All--
Chapman's piece and the headline the Tribune has chosen to give to his piece
is indicative of the depth to which opponents of eating and drinking in health
indoor environments would go to in order to support ideologies beneficial to
the economic prerogatives of a deadly product and industry.
Chapman (a) ignores the vast multitude of natioanlly and internationally
reputable researchers and studies on the grave dangers and harm of exposure to
secondhand smoke (whose chemical mix contains over 3000 toxic substances); (b)
wants us to hink, albeit in a rather week manner that the science against
secondhand smoke is weak and not clear enough (let's get this straight--Chapman can
choose to be myopic but he does not qualify either to represent the weight of
the science on this issue nor to represent the weight of policy relevant
science on this issue either, and simply quoting a former editor of NIH's journal
on this while ignoring the thousands of other researhcers whose peer-reviewed
published research is implicating secondhand smoke exposure as toxic to human
health and life, does not add up.
At another level anyone who supports smoking in public places and also
supports the degradation of the health and welfare of the people who work and eat
either needs to re-examine whether he or she really belongs to this world or
not--simply to elect to be misanthropic in the face of supporting a deadly
product and industry under the pre-text of choice, or any other pretext for that
matter, cannot be possibly supportive of the public or the common good.
the kicker in all that he says boils down to this: if Chicago is the largest
US city without a smokefree, healthy , and supportive environment, Chicago is
also the biggest smoking city and urban cigarette market in the country--a
charactersitc the tobacco industry would not want to be eroded (via a smoke free
ordinance) anytime soon!
Chapman has a lot of homework to do, and he should stop insulting his readers
intelligence and understanding of what is in their best interest--and
certainly good health and freedom form the deadly exposure to secondhand smoke is in
the best interest of his readers.
Theo
In a message dated 11/18/03 6:05:04 AM, cu-smokefree-request at chambana.net
writes:
<< Send CU-Smokefree mailing list submissions to
cu-smokefree at chambana.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cu-smokefree-request at chambana.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
cu-smokefree-admin at chambana.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CU-Smokefree digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Smoking ban has a strong air of intolerance (kdrea at lungil.org)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:34:04 -0800 (PST)
From: kdrea at lungil.org
Reply-To: kdrea at lungil.org
To: cu-smokefree at chambana.net
Subject: [C-U Smokefree] Smoking ban has a strong air of intolerance
This story was sent to you by: Kathy Drea
--------------------
Smoking ban has a strong air of intolerance
--------------------
Steve Chapman
November 16, 2003
There are all sorts of restaurants in this broad land of ours. You can find
Chinese, Mexican, Thai, Indian, German, Ethiopian or Greek. You can choose
steakhouses or vegetarian spots, fast-food or slow, heart-healthy or
artery-clogging, chain or independent, seedy or elegant. But in Wilmette, there will soon
be only one kind of restaurant: non-smoking.
The village board has approved the strictest anti-smoking ban in Illinois,
including not only dining establishments but bars, bowling alleys and country
clubs. This brings the town into line with a fashion that has spread from
California to New York City. It also renews hope among tobacco opponents of getting
cigarettes banished from restaurants in Chicago, currently the biggest city in
America to allow smoking in restaurants.
As a lifelong non-smoker, I don't like to see smoke when I'm eating, unless
it's billowing from a barbecue pit. But I'm not one of those who think that
anything that suits me should also be required by law. If I were, I'd be out
campaigning for a ban on sushi, anywhere, anytime.
Tobacco opponents once had to endure the risk of being enveloped in fumes
anytime they went out to eat. But as the number of smokers has declined,
restaurants have adapted to satisfy non-smokers. They forbid cigars and pipes, offer
separate areas for non-smokers, or simply prohibit smoking altogether.
Wilmette has 39 restaurants, and before the ordinance was passed, 33 of them
didn't allow smoking. Anyone with an aversion to the smell of tobacco had
plenty of dining options even without venturing into the wilds of Evanston or
Winnetka. Chicago, for that matter, has some 500 smoke-free restaurants.
But getting their way 85 percent of the time was not enough for the
proponents of total bans. They bring to mind Henry Ford's Model T, which you could get
in any color, as long as it was black.
The advocates insist their policy is essential for public health. They argue
that secondhand smoke from cigarettes endangers the health of patrons as well
as employees, and that a smoking ban is the only adequate protection.
The Environmental Protection Agency says these fumes are hazardous, but not
all experts agree. John Bailar III, an emeritus professor at the University of
Chicago and former editor-in-chief of The Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, is among those with doubts. "We still do not know, with accuracy, how
much or even whether exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk
of coronary heart disease," he wrote in 1999 in the New England Journal of
Medicine.
Earlier this year, an article in the British Medical Journal said much better
research is needed "if we really want to know whether passive smoking
increases the risk of various diseases." Even if prolonged exposure is dangerous,
it's not clear that an occasional whiff in a restaurant would have any effect.
But assuming the most dire claims are true, they don't justify a
one-size-fits-some policy. People choose to take risks every day, and if exposure to
tobacco fumes is one, it's hard to see why they shouldn't have the option of
accepting or rejecting it.
You don't like the smell of fried food? Avoid fast-food outlets. You don't
like smoking? Go to a place where it's not permitted. In a sector as diverse and
crowded with competitors as the restaurant industry, there should be room for
places that indulge people who want to light up. Majority rule can be
reconciled with minority protections.
The anti-smoking forces say that approach ignores the danger to restaurant
and bar employees, who stand to breathe much more polluted air than patrons.
"It's not a matter of choice to let people work in conditions that are a health
risk," says Joel Africk, head of the American Lung Association of Metropolitan
Chicago.
But why not? We don't outlaw logging, even though the industry has an
on-the-job death rate about 30 times higher than the national average, or commercial
fishing, which is 17 times more dangerous than the typical workplace. We
assume that rational adults can judge for themselves what their safety is worth.
That same principle applies equally well to waiters and bartenders. Those who
detest or fear tobacco smoke can find countless employers who will
accommodate their preferences. Those who don't care are free to work in restaurants that
tolerate smoking.
But tolerance doesn't count for much among anti-smoking activists, who think
diversity goes too far when it shelters a noxious habit. Their approach is a
reversal of the old Burger King slogan: Have it our way.
----------
E-mail: schapman at tribune.com
Copyright (c) 2003, Chicago Tribune
--------------------
Improved archives!
Searching Chicagotribune.com archives back to 1985 is cheaper and easier than
ever. New prices for multiple articles can bring your cost down to as low as
30 cents an article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/archives
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
CU-Smokefree mailing list
CU-Smokefree at chambana.net
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree
End of CU-Smokefree Digest
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <cu-smokefree-admin at chambana.net>
Received: from rly-xc03.mx.aol.com (rly-xc03.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.136])
by air-xc04.mail.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXC41-dc3fba18dd6; Tue,
18 Nov 2003 08:05:04 -0500
Received: from imsahp.cu.groogroo.com (imsahp.cu.groogroo.com [64.5.70.195])
by rly-xc03.mx.aol.com (v97.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXC310-dc3fba18dd6;
Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:04:34 -0500
Received: by imsahp.cu.groogroo.com (Postfix, from userid 1006)
id 11BCC171FC; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:04:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from imsahp (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by imsahp.cu.groogroo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id DFCA5171D5; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:03:33 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:00:45 -0600
Message-ID: <20031118130045.8459.45840.Mailman at imsahp>
From: cu-smokefree-request at chambana.net
Subject: CU-Smokefree digest, Vol 1 #26 - 1 msg
Reply-To: cu-smokefree at chambana.net
X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.11
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
To: cu-smokefree at chambana.net
Sender: cu-smokefree-admin at chambana.net
Errors-To: cu-smokefree-admin at chambana.net
X-BeenThere: cu-smokefree at chambana.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:cu-smokefree-request at chambana.net?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:cu-smokefree at chambana.net>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree>,
<mailto:cu-smokefree-request at chambana.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Champaign-Urbana Smoking Ban Supporters <cu-smokefree.chambana.net>
List-Unsubscribe:
<http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/cu-smokefree>,
<mailto:cu-smokefree-request at chambana.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/cu-smokefree/>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on imsahp
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-14.7 required=4.5 tests=BAYES_00,MAILMAN_DIGEST,
NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
X-Spam-Level:
X-AOL-IP: 64.5.70.195
X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0
>>
More information about the CU-Smokefree
mailing list