Smokers Rights Newsletter
Location: USA
Topic: News
Nanny Governments Page 3




SMOKING POLICIES: A CIVILISED APPROACH

July, 2008
By Dolan Cummings

We should scrap state-imposed smoking bans. The question of 'smoking or non-smoking' should be negotiated informally, among people themselves.

Download Thinkpiece (pdf)
http://www.manifestoclub.com/files/Cummings0907.pdf


History Shows Smoking Bans Likely to Be Repealed

Written By: Jeremy Richards
Published In: Budget & Tax News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Government-imposed smoking bans have been spreading across the United States and around the world in the past two decades. Cities, counties, states, provinces, and even whole countries have embraced the idea that the slight public health risk possibly caused by secondhand smoke justifies the use of police powers to enforce smoking bans on private property.

Most news accounts regarding smoking ban proposals make it seem as though this phenomenon is fresh, new, and progressive, and that once passed, smoking bans are likely to remain on the books and be enforced forever. However, history shows the reality is quite different.

Many smoking bans have been adopted in the past, often for reasons that appear ridiculous in hindsight, and they were repealed when cooler heads prevailed.


Four Centuries of Suppression

Smoking bans have come and gone on a global basis for the past 400 years. In 1575, the first recorded prohibition of the use of tobacco occurred when the Roman Catholic Church banned smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies. In the 1600s, Pope Urban VIII threatened excommunication for those who smoked or used snuff in holy places. In 1633, Ottoman Sultan Murad IV banned smoking, and as many as 18 people a day were executed for breaking his law.

In 1634, Russian Czar Alexis banned smoking. Those found guilty of a first offense risked whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offense faced execution. That same year, the Greek Orthodox Church banned the use of tobacco, claiming tobacco smoke was responsible for intoxicating Noah.

Asian nations made moves against tobacco, too. In 1612, a royal decree forbade the use or cultivation of tobacco in China. It was expanded in 1638, when China made the use or supply of tobacco a crime punishable by decapitation. In 1617, a Mongolian Emperor prohibited the use of tobacco. People breaking the law faced the death penalty. In 1620, the Japanese government banned the use of tobacco.

Even in America, where tobacco originated, anti-smoking restrictions developed. The first recorded smoking ban in America occurred in 1632, when Massachusetts introduced a ban on smoking in public places. In 1639, Gov. Willem Kieft of New Amsterdam outlawed smoking in what later became New York City.

In Connecticut in 1647, people were allowed to smoke only once a day, and public smoking was prohibited. In 1683, Massachusetts passed the first laws in America prohibiting smoking outdoors. The city of Philadelphia followed suit, introducing fines for offenders.


Rare in 18th, 19th Centuries

Smoking bans and prohibitions became rare during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Trade in tobacco became an important source of revenue for governments, and tobacco bans were repealed. There were a few notable exceptions, though, including a 1719 French smoking ban, which exempted a number of provinces, and a smoking ban in 1840 in Boston.

Anti-tobacco policies were revived in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in a movement that paralleled the then-popular alcohol prohibition movement. The Anti-Cigarette League of America campaigned against cigarette sales. Between 1890 and 1930, 15 states enacted laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession, or use of cigarettes, and 22 other states considered such legislation.

Even the legislature of the tobacco-producing state of North Carolina considered cigarette prohibition laws in 1897, 1901, 1903, 1905, 1911, 1913, and again in 1917.

Eventually, all the states repealed their cigarette prohibition laws. Kansas was the last to do so, in 1927.


Nazi Smoke-Haters

The next major anti-smoking restrictions were in Nazi Germany. Anti-tobacco extremist Adolf Hitler once stated tobacco was "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man." Under Hitler, smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals, and rest homes, and later blanket smoking bans were introduced in many cafes, bars, and restaurants.

After World War II, during the period of de-Nazification, those bans were repealed.


Neither Progressive nor Permanent

Placed in historical context, today's anti-smoking restrictions appear to be neither progressive nor permanent. Like past bans, they are based on prejudices and conventional wisdom that are likely to be falsified by new scientific and health discoveries or, if you like, new prejudices and conventional wisdoms.

Also like past bans, today's prohibitions are leading to civil disobedience, black markets, and heavy social and economic costs.

With the anti-smoking message backed by billions of dollars from government, foundations, and drug companies, it is easy to overlook the backlash that is already occurring and has been growing stronger. Business owners have been fighting back against smoking restrictions, and prohibitions are being more widely flouted in places such as Italy, Spain, Turkey, and, yes, to some degree even in California.

In addition, governments need the revenue that smokers provide in taxes and in revenue to hospitality establishments that cater to a smoking clientele.

Though the anti-smoking movement looks formidable, if history is any indication we will not have to wait long for current smoking bans to unravel.

Jeremy Richards (think@heartland.org) is an assistant professor of history at a Georgia college.


Blast From the (not really that distant) Past
June 27, 2008
Recently when I was back at my parents' house I discovered an old high school newspaper I had kept from my tenth grade year.  It was an issue from November 1989.  In that issue was an article titled "The Risk of Smoking," and it is very revealing.  It does not tell who posted this article, but it may have been from the teacher who oversaw the paper.  At any rate, the information in the article appears to have originated from something like ACS propaganda of that era.  It notes that in 1985 390,000 Americans died from smoking.  That indicates that the statistics were already being inflated.  As for the ETS issue:  "even a nonsmoker can experience severe health problems if the person is frequently exposed to the smoke of others; this is called 'passive smoking'."  Also, "'Passive smoking' can lead to respiratory infections and lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers." 
This was long before the days that one whiff of ETS could kill with no safe level.  Of  course by this point nicotine was already an "addicting drug, just like heroin or cocaine." 
We have come quite a ways since 1989.  As a historian I suspect that years from now historians may debate whether the tobacco control movement was destined to go down the path of lunacy prohibition like alcohol control had done or whether it could have gone another way (perhaps stick with the education and gentle persuasion).  I lean toward the theory that it had no alternative but to go looney.  The anti-smoking zealots had to get their way, whatever the effect on society.  Civility and economics be damned!
- A Newsletter Reader


Tobacco Taxes and the Constitutional Rights of Smokers
Cigarette taxes and smoking laws… attacks on human rights and property rights
May 2008
by A.O. Kime
The unconstitutional attack on smokers (part I)
As if the lessons learned from Prohibition (alcohol ban) during the 1920’s weren’t enough, not even America’s imbecilic 40-year war on drugs, a war which has cost the American taxpayers an estimated 33 billion dollars with nothing to show for it, unbelievably, it is now thought tobacco is somehow different and can be controllable through legislation. Of course, 'controllable' can have different agendas... not necessarily having anything to do with consumption.
Read more
http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/tobacco.htm


War on smokers is like a horror movie
May 28, 2008
By Jim Bailey
As the war against smoking rages on, we should consider this quote from H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for those who want to rule it."
Banner-carriers want to impose their will on others - by law and taxes, attacking what most consider individual rights of choice. Everyone has to ask: Where will I draw the line? Who will be there to support me and my right to choose?
The classic 1959 film "House on Haunted Hill" presents a bone-chilling image. After all the other guests in an isolated mansion have been killed one by one, the last one alive says: "They are coming for me now ..." Then he looks dead on into the camera and says: "... and then they will come for you." The evil is approaching - slow and steady:
Delcambre, La., passed a law banning the wearing of extremely baggy pants. Maximum fine is $500 and six months in jail. Mayor Carol Broussard was reported to say anyone wearing these pants should be held responsible.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to impose a tax on stores that sell sugary soft drinks. Using the same argument employed against tobacco, Newsom connects obesity with increased health care costs to the city.
The Mississippi Legislature is considering a bill to ban restaurants from serving food to very fat people. It would revoke the license of any restaurant repeatedly feeding the obese.
A New Mexico legislator has proposed a tax on video games and televisions to help fund the fight against childhood obesity.
Chillingly, those against smoking bans enforced by law rather than choice can look at us and say, "They are coming for smokers now ... and then they will come for you."
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080528/EDIT02/805280306
 

Wellness Über Alles

May 10, 2008

A new battlefront in the war to erase politically incorrect civil liberties is taking place across corporate America under the innocuous-sounding banner of "Wellness."  Wellness certainly sounds nice; what kind of person is against wellness?  That sounds as crazy as being anti-hope, or standing in the way of change. 

Obviously we all want to be well, but now it appears you won't have much choice in the matter.  Be well or face consequences beyond the state of one's health. But always remember: We're doing this for your own good.

The latest thing that's in our best interest is a renewed focus on quitting smoking, or as they say in more sophisticated circles, smoking cessation.  And I'll take a brief time out to recognize that, indeed, quitting smoking is in a smoker's best interest, however, what's different this time around are the tactics employed. 

Before we discuss them, let's do a review of liberal social engineering programs from inception to execution.  These steps should prove generally predictive of smoking cessation efforts currently underway. 

  • A group of individuals anoints themselves as better-informed than the rest of us. They base this largely on the fact that they listen to the same programs on NPR and consistently vote Democrat.
  • The self-defined elite group comes to an agreement that the rest of us are not as enlightened as they. This is expressed in many ways, usually involving code words such as "clinging", "mean-spirited", or "greedy". If you hear these words being applied to you or your associates, this is a clear indication that you are not one of the elites.
  • The elites begin to develop a sense of responsibility for their lessers. This is often expressed in statements like, "It's just makes me so sad to see them like that. I wish there were something we could do to..."
  • The elites form a plan. The plan generally involves making everyone else behave like them. As enthusiasm rises, what were once "differences" become "problems" and finally metamorphose into a "crisis". When the word "crisis" appears, this usually signals the end of planning phase. The Plan predictably contains the following elements: coercion, moral superiority, lack of debate and voting, and a succession of "experts" who testify on its behalf.
  • The plan is imposed. If the legislative branch refuses, the judiciary is prevailed upon to conjure up a constitutional justification.
  • The plan begins to fail. This step is usually followed by demands for more resources to "properly implement the plan", (see the War on Poverty), and angry accusations at non-elite groups for their mean spirited, clingy refusal to change.
  • The plan fails.
  • The elites meet to form a new, better plan.

The smoking cessation plan seeks to turn recalcitrant smokers -- those so far unaffected by health education, high taxation and appeals to self-interest -- into non-smokers through the imposition of a "smoke free campus".  What this means essentially is that no one is allowed to smoke anywhere on company property.  Not content with banning smoking indoors and segregating it outdoors, it is now banished entirely like some wayward cleric in 13th century Europe, (or in the case of Islam - 21st century Europe).  In many cases, these smoke free campus programs make it a company offense to even retire to your own vehicle and smoke a cigarette with the windows rolled up.  The justification: your car is parked on our property and we don't approve of smoking! 

What are your options if you still stubbornly wish to assert your right to smoke?  Put on your walking shoes; you're going on a hike. 

Keep in mind that many corporate headquarters sit on multi-acre sites, and you realize that the afternoon smoke break is turned into something resembling the Boston Marathon.  Harried smokers trekking across vast empty lawns to stand across the street, puffing furiously to make up for the ten minutes wasted traversing the tobacco-free DMZ.  We may as well take this to its logical conclusion and hang a scarlet "S" around their necks while we're at it.

At this point you may well question my motivation for this cynical diatribe against change. Chalk it up to my basic lack of hope.  Let me go on record as stating that although I did smoke as a younger man, I have not engaged in this self-destructive habit since New Years Eve 1994.  I do not write this from the point of view of a disgruntled smoker forced to tint his car windows or purchase ergonomic walking shoes in order to continue the habit.  I have no dog in this fight.

Instead I use these corporate anti-smoking campaigns as an example of the stark differences between liberal and conservative ideology.  As a conservative I don't see it as my job, much less my right, to make other people do things that are "in their best interest".  As a conservative, my assumptions are:

  • I have no idea what someone else's "best interest" is;
  • Other people's "best interest", by definition, is none of my business.


It's a little concept called liberty.  And by the way, it's the cornerstone of the Enlightenment, and a document known as the U.S. Constitution.  The Founding Fathers were very fond of liberty and fought a couple of wars with England on the very subject.  Ditto a whole lot of civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's.

Freedom is the right of emancipated adults to make choices for themselves and accept the responsibility for the consequences.  Don't think that the good intentions of the elites stop at the point of preventing you from putting smoke in your mouth. There are all those bad choices people make about what to eat just begging for correction.

The exercise of personal liberty, for all its flaws and imperfections, is far superior to the alternative, which for all my searching to avoid an over-used, often cliché term, is best defined as fascism.  Not the jack boot, kick your door in at 3AM variety.  But the more insidious, smiley-face variety described admirably by Jonah Goldberg as Liberal Fascism. 

So the next time some well meaning do-gooder comes along and tries to take away your freedom of choice remember to mention John Locke and George Washington.  Point out that you're not monitoring their "lifestyle choices" and would appreciate it if they returned the favor.  Instruct them that freedom is a messy proposition and doesn't come with the right to make other people's decisions for them.

Tell them to put that in their pipe and smoke it  (metaphorically of course, because we all know smoking's bad for you).

The author has requested anonymity for career reasons.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/wellness_ueber_alles.html

Read More:   Nanny Governments Page 2