I prefer more stringent enforcement of the DUI laws especially since I live within 1/2 mile of 4 bars.
The choices that these folks make affects me when I am in my home, in my yard or driving up to the store. I don't have a choice as to when I am around someone who makes the choice to be intoxicated.
Someone smoking on the other hand.... I do have that choice. I can avoid that particular restaurant or bar (I don't drink so this is a non-issue), I can sit away from someone who is smoking. I can opt to not work in a smoking environment.
We all have the freedom of choice and if someone goes to a smoking establishment, this is their decision, they will suffer whatever consequences occur because of it but if I am sitting in my home and a drunk smashes into my home I have lost that freedom of choice.... I have passed it off into the hands of a stranger and law enforcement.
Below is a summary of the Lenexa, Kansas anti-smoking law:
"City Council passes law to protect public health
Lenexa’s smoking ordinance goes into effect Jan. 2, 2008
After nearly two years of discussion and study, the City Council passed a smoking ordinance to protect the public by minimizing health risks associated with second-hand smoking.
The new law bans smoking in all enclosed public places and places of employment in the city, including restaurants, bars, and clubs. The law also prohibits smoking within 10 feet of a public building’s entrance. Exceptions are outdoor dining areas and tobacco shops. The law does not regulate private homes except those that operate daycares and health care facilities. The law goes into effect on Jan. 2, 2008, to provide business owners and employers time to prepare.
The City Council gathered input from members of the community and took into consideration a study that measured the possible impact of smoking restrictions at restaurants and bars in Johnson County. According to the study, which was commissioned by Johnson County last year, 80 percent of those surveyed said they typically request “non smoking” seating at restaurants; and 35 percent said they would eat at full-service restaurants more often in Johnson County if smoking restrictions were implemented.
During the period of study and discussion, the council also heard overwhelming evidence regarding the dangers of second hand smoke."
1 comment:
Just curious if anyone would change their arguments if they realized that the vast majority of studies in to second-hand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke or whatever you want to call it, have shown virtually NO RELATIONSHIP between exposure and disease risk!
“””Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2
Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998.
Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998…No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”””
Published in the prestigious British Medical Journal.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=enstrom&searchid=1063712558723_4332&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10
The biggest hit on this particular study is that it received part of it’s funding from the tobacco industry. The actual TRUTH is that the funding was provided by THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY for about 90% of the study UNTIL preliminary results began coming out, at which point the ACS yanked the funding. In order to complete the study, the ONLY source of funding to be found was the tobacco industry.
This is but one of many studies worldwide to show NO LINK between ETS and disease. In fact, when the EPA originally declared ETS a carcinogen, it cherry picked only about 1/4 of the data that supported it’s position while “throwing out” the other 3/4 of the available data that showed no risk. To the extent that the US Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had overstepped it’s bounds in the very declaration.
Therefore, the entire basis of smoking bans are based on a massive disinformation campaign.
Post a Comment