Another Subtle Erosion of Freedom

I have been following, with interest, about a proposed "Smoking Ban" that My County, Ottawa County, Michigan, wishes to put into effect for ALL workplaces in the county, public and private. Up front let me say that I am a casual cigar smoker. I do not smoke cigars in the workplace...only on my own time and always at the consideration of others.

I find it very alarming and disturbing that County Government wishes to the wield power and policy into the private sector. I can fully understand and support the County enforcing a smoking ban on buildings and properties of which it owns and operates but to pass a law that that further inhibits a business' right to function as it see fit...do we really need another law imposing restrictions on and individuals or business' personal freedom?? Business' in Michigan already have a tough go of it as evidenced by our States and Counties dismal economy. Just look at out 7.2% unemployment rate ... 2.7 % above the National average!

The American anti-smoking crusade has been very successful. There are now more ex-smokers in America as there are smokers. But even after thirty years of constant urging to kick the habit, about a quarter of the population still chooses to smoke.

America was built on a live and let live attitude. Before the current crop of busybodies, do-gooders and nannies gained political power, we let people do what they like - even if they were hurting themselves - as long as didn't hurt anyone else. We'd only step in if an unwilling bystander was being harmed. That left the door open for the Second Hand Smoke (SHS) attack on smokers.

If SHS really is as dangerous as the government, political organizations and charities claim, efforts to prevent it and contain it might be justified. But is it dangerous? We're bombarded by endless proclamations of its horrors, claims that get more fantastic with each passing year. These claims are usually accompanied by impressive sounding numbers. Are smokers really hurting every stranger in the vicinity?

There have been a number of studies, most notably the EPA study of 1993, in which the EPA labeled Second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen. The EPA report on second-hand smoke is the impetus for hundreds of jurisdictions around the United States to ban smoking in public places, including restaurants, office buildings, and airports. The report also has been used as evidence in lawsuits against the tobacco companies.

This same EPA report was ruled NULL and VOID by a federal judge who said the EPA made serious mistakes in evaluating the risk of second-hand smoke. In his ruling, Federal District Judge William Osteen said the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information." That, the judge said, put into question the agency's decision to designate secondhand smoke a Class A carcinogen or a proven cause of cancer in humans. Only 15 other highly reactive substances, including asbestos and radon, are ranked Class A carcinogens.

Another report on the effects on Second Hand Smoke and often cited by opponents of smoking was done by the World Health Organization and it contained some surprising results. The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of second hand smoke, and the effect of second hand smoke exposure on different types of lung cancer. The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers. Additionally the only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."

Very surprising results when compared to the well oiled anti-smoking crowd propaganda.

Smoking bans have become the latest in a long line of politically correct things to do. The media hype surrounding so called "second hand smoke" is very obvious. I sympathize with those that have, or think they have, experienced any reaction to cigarette, cigar or pipe smoke. Considerate smokers recognize that there are those offended by smoking and will bend over backwards to make sure the non-smoker is comfortable.

Again, I reiterate that I support anything the County does to ban smoking places it owns and operates but I urge them to exercise caution in their consideration of wielding any power into the private sector ... What will be next? Creating policy regulating what I can do on my own property and in my own home? Don't laugh. It's alrady happening in the Socialist Republic of California. As I said previously, I find the Counties abuse of power very alarming and disturbing and just another erosion of Freedom in an increasingly socialist Amerika. (Not to mention the sad fact that so many Americans are willing to give up their freedoms to let all levels of Government tell them how they should live their lives.)