The slippery slope
 

•Jun 14, 2006
by Walter E. Williams

Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.

In the early stages of the anti-tobacco campaign, there were calls for "reasonable" measures such as non-smoking sections on airplanes and health warnings on cigarette packs. In the 1970s, no one would have ever believed such measures would have evolved into today's level of attack on smokers, which includes confiscatory cigarette taxes and bans on outdoor smoking.

The door was opened, and the zealots took over. Much of the attack was justified by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondhand smoke study that used statistical techniques, if used by an academic researcher, would lead to condemnation if not expulsion. Let's say that you support the attack on smokers. Are you ready for the next round of tyranny using tactics so successful for the anti-tobacco zealots?


According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.

Right now, the FDA doesn't have the authority to require restaurants to label the number of calories, set portion sizes on menus or prohibit allowing customers from taking home a doggie bag. That's for right now, but recall that cigarette warning labels were the anti-tobacco zealots' first steps. There are zealots like the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest who've for a long time attacked Chinese and Mexican restaurants for serving customers too much food. They also say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." They've called for caffeine warning labels, and they don't stop there. The Center's director said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses and meat." Visions of higher taxes are music to politicians' ears.

How many Americans would like to go to a restaurant and have the waiter tell you, based on calories, what you might have for dinner? How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? What about a Burger King cashier refusing to sell french fries to overweight people? You say, "Williams, that's preposterous! It would never come to that."

I'm betting that would have been the same response during the 1970s had someone said the day would come when cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., and Friendship Heights, Md., would write ordinances banning outdoor smoking. Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear reasonable. Revealing their complete agenda from the start would encounter too much resistance.

Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?


Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.


Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Amen brother.

Ooohhh... lookee'

Call for tougher junk food ad ban
The government's food watchdog is pushing for a ban on TV commercials advertising junk food before the 9pm watershed.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) says proposals drawn up by media regulator Ofcom to reduce the effect of junk food ads on children do not go far enough.
The three sets of options stop short of a pre-watershed ban.
But the FSA says banning such ads for products like crisps and fizzy drinks would help protect children's health.

It is estimated that 14% of children in England are clinically obese.
Earlier this year, Ofcom proposed tighter restrictions on the timing and content of junk food commercials as part of a consultation.
One option was to ban the ads in commercial breaks in programmes for pre-school children.

The FSA would join a groundswell of support for the ban from numerous groups including parents
British Heart Foundation


Another was to ban or restrict them in programmes for the under-10s.
At a meeting in Bristol on Thursday, the FSA rejected all Ofcom's options.
It argues a ban on junk food commercials before 9pm would extend protection to older age groups.
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) said it was "delighted" that the FSA was pressing Ofcom for a pre-watershed ban.
It claims more than two-thirds of parents would support such a move.
Campaigns officer Josh Bayly said: "The obesity problem in this country has got to such a serious state now that any action we can take we really must take.
"Around 80%-90% of television advertising is junk food advertising - food that is high in fat, sugar and salt.
"With children watching over 20 hours of television a week now it is a very, very considerable influence over their food choices."
Sue Davies, chief policy adviser to the consumer magazine Which? also backed the FSA position.
She said: "We hope that Ofcom can now accept that its approach is completely flawed and put children's health first."
However, broadcasters said such a ban could cost them £140m in lost advertising revenue.
The deadline for responses to the consultation is 30 June.
Last month, it emerged that the National Heart Forum was preparing an application for a judicial review over the consultation.
The heart charity said it was unlawful and unfair to exclude the possibility of a pre-watershed ban.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...th/5081964.stm

Published: 2006/06/15 13:43:05 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Goddammit, I'm gonna eat like a pig if I want, and no government's gonna stop me.

Really? And if you have private property and you want your customers to be able to smoke....

If someone wants to smoke on my property, nobody is going to stop them. Simple. Don't like it, don't come in.

What if it isn't the government that takes this initiative? What if, say, it was your employer that fired you for unhealthy eating/smoking/drinking?

Well that's his right, I guess. I could try to get on him for firing me without ample reason, but thats a different issue.

Their reason would be that you were too ample.

That is not the way it works, if you own a store or restaurant.

Why can't you selfish people get it through your heads...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN.

You've done what you want and consequently screwed up your health, but by God, your betters will not allow you to inflict your degradation on the next generation. They'll raise healthy war fighters in spite of you.

What the hell do you think this is...some kind of free country or something?:lol2:

What happens if/when they find that a little second hand smoke strengthens kids immune systems? Pfizer will probably make an inhaler...

It only works if it's a prescription. ;)

A collegue of my father's told me about a case they had a few days ago. A woman came into the ER with a stroke and a collapsed lung. She was so fat they couldn't put a chest tube in her so they needed to move her into the OR. Picture three docs, all with multiple other trauma cases comming in to deal with, having to shove their hands into her chest halfway to the elbow to hold back her fat so that yet another doctor could get a tube into her chest cavity to release the fluid pressure against her lungs. Not only did she endanger the lives of other people comming in from car accidents and serious injuries by forcing half the doctors in the ER to divert their attention, but if the time delay was the difference between her living or dying all of those doctors are now up for a lawsuit. But of course a jury would never hear that side of the story. We may live in a free country, but other people always have to take responsibility for people like this. I don't care if the 300lb guy in front of me at McDonalds can't have his Big Mac and large shake, I'll probably end up paying his medical bill anyway!!

So what? Pay the bill.
I'm paying an accumulated fortune to supply the local rug rats with toys and stuff I can't afford for myself, in the name of producing well rounded students.
We all pay for stuff we have no say in, no benefit from and sometimes are vehemently opposed to.

Tell the 300 lb guy how you feel....maybe he'll share his fries.:rolleyes:

It is now a 'slam dunk' fact that smoking AND second hand smoke is deadly. Details posted in the Entertainment Section at Shock & Gore - TV Ads - Enough is Enough

We have known that cooking fumes are deadly for years as well, but no one wants to outlaw BBQ restaurants.
Again, it is private property, as long as the ventilation allows for OSHA standards in air quality... if you don't like it, don't eat or shop there.

Kelo vs. New London, if nothing else, has shown us that we have a great deal of difficulty defining the terms "public" and "private."

I think market forces rather than law should determine things like this (smoking/non-smoking).

But now I have another reason not to go to Philadelphia.

By your reasoning, why should OSHA standards apply? Couldn't market forces determine the acceptible level of air toxicity in the workplace?

That is not my reasoning at all. I was very clear. There is no need to twist my words and meaning in any way.

It would appear not. Even after your admonition I don't see how I twisted anything. If you don't like working in a non-OSHA-compliant workplace, and said workplace is private property, couldn't you find another job?

If I am missing the distinction, please point it out to me.

I was specific in my post, but I will spell-it-out for you, since you need that.
I feel that there need to be certain standards for air quality within reasonable limits.
Saying there can be no smoke means that there can be no more BBQ joints, no more Asian cook to order bars, no more anything with any kind of smoke... I would not be able to burn trees in the groves I used to work in, or cook in any of the restaurants I used to work in... this little OSHA red herring is so transparent.
Smoking sections, cooking areas, clubs and bars had to be OSHA compliant for air quality/ventilation well before any of this came-up.
True, if you want to be in a completely smoke free environment, I agree, you need to find another job.
Absolutely, bar or restaurant that is privately owned, where the owners wish their patrons to be able to smoke on their property would be a stupid choice of places to work, just like if you hate to walk and don't want varicose veins... don't do it genius.

They don't ban "smoke". The type of smoke matters. Different types have different acceptible levels. Burning plastic is different from burning wood, which is different from burning palm oil. There are plenty of things that, if burned in a restauraunt at a similar concentration to the normal griddle smoke, would be considered toxic or carcinogenic, and plenty of things that, if burned at a much higher concentration than the griddle, would be considered fine.

And several types of cooking fumes and smoke have been classified as type one carcinogens. Again, as long as the area meets OSHA standards via ventilation it is no one's damn business what someone allows on their private property.
I guess no one should be allowed to be a fireman now?
It is sick that so many have allowed the busybodies to impose their bullshit on private citizens... your food will be next.
Liberty is a bad word now.

They have a ton of safety regulations ... no more valiantly dashing into a burning building with no face mask, etc.

(wikipedia)

An interesting perspective.


But me, I think neither smoking nor overeating is a problem which ever will be solved (in any meaningful sense of the word) by way of legislation. Nor gay marriage, nor abortion, nor most of the things that are of late treated as sincerely critical issues.

Before yes vs no, equally intense consideration should be given to whether or not the question is relevant and to whether or not it is our place to decide. Too often, the unasked for answers are no on both counts.

Well said.

But, how can they be "free" if they are not "free" to inflict their will on all of those around them, even on their own property?
To a busybody, freedom means "I'm free to never be uncomfortable, to never hear speech I don't like, never to have to change the channel or to have to decide whether to watch or not to watch or to decide not to shop or eat somewhere where someone has different values and tastes than I" and nothing else.
It is the freedom to be a bully and it gives them wood.

BBQ fumes (inside a building) are also dangerous. So why was the other half of that fact (BBQ is also dangerous) intentionally ignored? Classic Rush Limbaugh logic? We don't BBQ inside for same reasons - a threat to innocent lives. However cigarette smokers so hate other's rights as to condom same kind of lies that also claimed the Ozone layer was not being destroyed. Half truths. We now have a fact. Second hand smoke is dangerous - 'slam dunk'. And based in science; not in Karl Rove propaganda.

Any public establishment that allows smoking condemns me - bans me - from that establishment. Smokers literally drive off healthy people only because of drug addiction and total disrespect for others. Would you point an unloaded gun at another? Of course not. So obvious that we don't need laws to ban that act - or at least should not. And yet cigarette smokers are so addicted (and therefore not logical) as to impose their addiction on all others.

You want to drag race? Fine. Go find a track where you do not threaten other's lives. You want to smoke? Fine. Build a structure for your drug addiction. No objection to a cigarette or heroine addiction. Problems start when you impose those additions on others.

You have no right to urinate in a urinal where others are eating. Urine vapors are not deadly. Meanwhile cigarette smokers have no problem doing something far more dangerous than urinating in the same room. It’s called practicing an addictive drug habit with complete disregard for the rights and health of others.

You want lower intelligence? Fine. That's your problem. Keep smoking. However you have no right to impose that penalty on anyone else.

Smokers need to understand what they are. Addicts. They are dangerous - just like BBQing inside the room - at the expense of other innocent people.

But it's YOUR choice to not go there. The government shouldn't be involved at all.

Why stop at places to eat? Why not people's cars? Of course, this is only if there is a child under age six in the car because, obviously, it is child abuse.

Is it really? Does subjecting a child to second hand smoke constitute child abuse? Is the smoker causing damage to the child's body, much like (or potentially causing more damage than) striking them? If it is abuse, is subjecting others to second hand smoke parallel to commiting assault? Can I go into public and release cyanide vapor for my enjoyment and just assume others around me should go away? People have a choice! I should be able to go into a restaurant and open a capsule of anthrax to the air if I want! Often, I walk down the street and fire my handgun randomly in the air. I have a very high chance of hurting myself in enjoying that hobby, but people around me shouldn't interfere with my freedom despite that I might hurt them, right?

Wheeee! I love sliding down this slope!

:D

Hey, shoot all the anthrax you want! As long as you do it on private property, with the permission of the owner, without any people involuntarily present, I sure as hell won't try to stop you.

So, logically, we can ban smoking in all public places since it involves public property and involuntary participants? No more hanging a cigarette out the window of your car or puffing down the street, right?

I think that is a valid law, though I wouldn't support it. My problem is with the government trying to regulate private property.

I think we've probably heaped enough negative energy on the smokers by now. I was riding past a house yesterday and a woman was walking out to her car, having a smoke. We exchanged greetings and she did a weird thing. She palmed her cigarette like she was caught smoking in school or something.

A fundamental difference exists between logic and negative energy. If our social standards are 'you have a right to do anything as long as it does not impose on the rights of others'; then we have only defined public smoking exactly in logical perspectives.

You want to do heroine? Fine. That is only your problem. You want to crucify your kids because you do heroine? Then it becomes everyone else's problem only because fundamental human rights are being violated.

There is no 'heaping of negative energy'. A logical fact denied by some smokers is that public smokers threaten the health of others; violate basic human rights of other people - only because they are addicted.

It is now a 'slam dunk' fact that smokers attack the health of non-smoking victims. She palmed the cigarette maybe because she does not want to be considered an addict. Just like a smoker who waves hands in the air to clear the smoke and says, "Look, I stopped smoking. The air is clear now." Denial rather than logic; as if smoking were not harmful to a smoker and his adjacent victims.

No negative energy. Just hard core, politically incorrect, and blunted stated facts.

TW, if you dont like the guy smoking, walk away.

It is a public area. I must leave only because smokers have rights? In fact, I am denied access to or driven out of most bars only because of their addiction. You have it completely backwards. Should I have to leave only because my skin is black? No difference. Both actions are a threat to my safety only because they want to smoke? Walk away? I have been doing that too many decades only because drug addicts have all the rights?

Who gets ill right then because they are smoking? Who has a headache sometimes before I can detect the odor. They have the right to physically attack my body? I should have to walk away from my beer only because they are so intolerant, addicted, and toxic? You have it backwards. I should be tolerant of their intolerance? I should be denied access to any restaurant? Maybe they will sell me food out the back door? Who then is the nigger?

No, but THEY shouldnt have to leave for being WHITE. If you dont like, or feel uncomfortable around a bunch of smokers, then it's not THEM who's kicking you out, its YOU who's choosing to leave. I don't like people smoking around me, to tell the truth. It gives me a headache too. But if it's not my property, I can't tell him to stop or to go away. I can ask nicely, but if he doesnt want to, I cant make him. I can only leave.

Would you feel the same about people who like to blow air horns?

"...drug addicts have all the rights..." tw?

I think I can say that that is an unqualified NO.

And how come your hanging out in all these bars? Do you have something you'd like to tell us, tw? :D

Either its called dinner, or its how I stay away from another addiction called The Cellar, or maybe its is a rare treat soured by cigarette smoke. Maybe I am a part time alcoholic - or just get bouts of thirsty. I don't have numbers so I cannot say for sure. How's that for an answer chock full of perspectives.

I like. I'm wondering right now!

A bar or restaurant is private property, not public. If the owner wants smoking allowed, how is it anyone's business?
I smoke a pipe and/or cigar about twice a week, I am not addicted to anything nor am I "toxic", LOL!
A little insight on the "new study" and "new announcement" by the Surgeon Gen. BTW.
Sucks that part of being free is having to deal with other's acting free as well, some can't deal. Private property should have meaning.
Funny thing is that you know that most establishments would have a non-smoking area... antis just like to bitch.
Some examples of what they are like when the come into the cigar forums.
People who don't belive in freedom... just from this week:

Anti-smoker posts...
That is the mentality of who we are dealing with.

Because a bar or restaurant - a privately owned facility - is a public establshment. Can they fill their bar with combustible foam on the walls and light off fireworks? You think that also is legal or acceptable?

There is nothing acceptable about a toxic drug addict blowing his fumes in another's face. Nothing. The 'slam dunk' now makes it that obvious.

When you light up, do you first ask everyone in the building, individually, for permission? Why not? They must consume your toxins? Why do you have any right to put toxins in another's body?

People sometimes are so responsible as to ask. I put them downwind. But that is rare from the drug addicts who smoke - and think it is their right to do so anywhere. After fifty plus years of being pushed around and driven out by drug addicts, I have had enough from their intolerance.

As a smoker, remember, you are endorsing an industry that even had a program ongoing to addict five year olds to nicotene. Sort of raised a question of morality. After logically deciding that smoking is not dangerous, did you then apply moral concepts to that conclusion and say addicting five year old is also acceptable?

Right on. I'm looking forward to getting these babies banned, too. I can't stand it when I'm outside and forced to inhale their toxins simply for their pleasure.

Your example has nothing to do with this argument. Again, I am not addicted to tobacco, nor are most that I associate with.
Again, those who run BBQ establishments, nail salons, or any other business with any other type of fume or smoke does not need to ask; because, as long as they meet OSHA air standards, it is their choice and the public decides to shop there or not.
I have always found it very humorous that the antis make it sound as if they have no choice but to be in an establishment, as if they did not know people smoke there or not... very silly. Also, just because I smoke a pipe and cigars does not mean I agree with all tobacco companies tactics any more than I agree with what Coke and Pepsi does with stealing water and polluting from third world nations, GM and Ford with economic manipulations with the same and as an American and patriot, supporting all this nation does. Just dumb.

Which is all irrelevant. "The times they are a changing." 'Slam dunk' facts now confront those who smoke in the face of others - with contempt for others. You want to smoke? Same concepts that ban taking shits in public. It's called simple human respect for others that required laws only because offenders have contempt for other's health. 'Slam dunk' from the Surgeon General is a final blow. You want to run a restaurant that permits smoking? Then make it a private club not open to the public. Then go ahead and put flammable foam on the walls and light up fire works - which is also dangerous and unacceptable in a public establishment - privately or publically owned. There is not reason for non-smokers to be tolerant of drug addicts when those drug addicts are so intolerant of all others.

Ban smoking in all public establishments and no one's rights are violated. None. No one.

Don't be tolerant, you are free not to be, just like I don't like the smell of stores that have tons of potpourri and nail salons... I just don't go in there, even though that is what those people do on their private property and want in their shops.
I have brains enough to do that without being so egomaniacal that I feel that I have to force everyone to do what I like, I guess some don't.

"I don't like" is not relevant. We are talking about attacks to healthy people by intolerant drug addicts. It's not about 'what I like'. It’s about assault. Just like urinating and defecating on public streets is considered an assault on the public's health.

Okay then, tw, take me for example. I get AWFUL migranes from certain smells, sometimes. The nearly visible cloud of perfume and cologne that surrounds the beauty section of most department stores is absolutely awful to me. But do I say that nobody should be allowed to sell or even wear perfume because the smell gives me excruciating headaches? No, I just shop somewhere else or avoid that section of the store.

But are those perfumes killing you? No. Big difference. 'Slam dunk' Those cigarette addicts are attacking your body. Not just headaches. It is an attack of your health.

Notice the minute one of those perfumes puts out a toxic odor, that perfume must be immediately eliminated. It's not about what you 'feel'. Its about science and logic. Cigarette smoke is an attack not on how you 'feel'. It is an attack on the public health.

So migranes are less harmful to me than a whiff of smoke?

I lived in Beijing, where the air was more smoke than not, for three years. I dont have lung cancer. I feel no ill effects of the smoke. If three years of breathing it almost constantly didnt hurt me, but two seconds sniffing concentrated perfume gives me a blinding migrane, I'd personally say the perfume is more of a threat to me.

No shit... I hate it when someone sprays that crap on and gets into an elevator. So rude.
Let's outlaw it!!! LOL... sound familiar? "Slam dunk" dur.
The acetone in a nail salon is toxic as are cooking fumes, but no one wants to outlaw those establishments... as they should not.
Because we believe in freedom.
But we are talking about private property, now aren't we?
Again, not all who smoke are addicted, are you having trouble reading this? Seems like you are the one on drugs.

Now I've said this before, but before tw flips out at me for it, I'm going to pre-emptively defend myself (LYK O NO U PREMTVLY DEFNDED U R LYK MENTL MIGET!!!one!1!eleven). I am personally against smoking in general, and if someone was smoking around me I would ask them to stop, probably. I would be one of the people who goes the the OTHER restaurant. But I completely support the right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property.

As would I.
I don't like smoke around my food and don't like cigarette smoke.
But, I like being a fascist much less.

In some towns, there is no other restaurant. They all condone smoking. The other restaurant means going to NY or NJ.

Meanwhile, I believe everyone agrees with this: right of anyone to do what they want on their own private property. Not to be confused with a privately owned public establishment.

By the argument being made public nudity should also be legal. Damned be those who don't want to look at certain parts of peoples bodies! After all, it's that person's body not yours and you can choose not to look.

And the fault in the logic about the perfume example is that while both perfume and cigarette smoke extend beyond the user of the product, the vast majority of people exposed to perfume suffer no ill health effects from such exposure. In contrast, the vast majority of people exposed to cigarette smoke do suffer ill health effects.

It's a public health issue.

You mean this is illegal?
Spencer Tunick in Switzerland