[Speed Gibson,
Sunday December 18, 2005 at 10:53pm]
Think a second time, Mr. Keegan
Swiftee is unhappy that our favorite publican, Terry Keegan, owner of Keegan's Irish Pub, is running ads reluctantly calling for a statewide smoking ban to level his playing field. Keegan himself called in Saturday to explain his position.
After calling all 13 council members and the mayor's office, only one returned his call. With such weak support, a repeal or easing of the Minneapolis ban is distant, and the next election is too far off to avoid whatever final action Keegan's must take.
His logic is understandable but only if you assume that no further action will be taken. What if outdoor patios are then outlawed, as in Golden Valley? What if "second hand drinking" or the amount of red meat in his famous stew come into question?
I would urge Terry to stand his ground. A statewide ban doesn't bring his business back to where it was. How much it would is just a guess, but clearly the overall bar business in Minnesota will drop as some percentage of smokers (and a percentage of their non-smoking friends) simply stay home. And the non-smokers who claim they will go out more simply don't show up.
This isn't about public health, even if there are some useful idiots who think so. This is about imposing politcally correct lifestyles, for which smoking is but one facet. If a statewide smoking ban is passed, Bob may go away but someone else will take his place.
After calling all 13 council members and the mayor's office, only one returned his call. With such weak support, a repeal or easing of the Minneapolis ban is distant, and the next election is too far off to avoid whatever final action Keegan's must take.
His logic is understandable but only if you assume that no further action will be taken. What if outdoor patios are then outlawed, as in Golden Valley? What if "second hand drinking" or the amount of red meat in his famous stew come into question?
I would urge Terry to stand his ground. A statewide ban doesn't bring his business back to where it was. How much it would is just a guess, but clearly the overall bar business in Minnesota will drop as some percentage of smokers (and a percentage of their non-smoking friends) simply stay home. And the non-smokers who claim they will go out more simply don't show up.
This isn't about public health, even if there are some useful idiots who think so. This is about imposing politcally correct lifestyles, for which smoking is but one facet. If a statewide smoking ban is passed, Bob may go away but someone else will take his place.
There is no reason to be insulting, SG. Please try to make your arguments without name calling, won't you?
I would urge Lung to please come forward with that evidence, post haste. I take both sides of this issue to be legitimate. But we don't make and listen to good arguments by calling names and by being rude.
As you all know, I also use our blog and interviews in the MSM to push our agenda. I do it pretty well, if I say so myself. But unlike Mr. Westover, I don't hide behind a "beard" and claim that I am something that I am not. I am proud of my position, and of the organization I represent.
Craig's repeated requests for "proof" is an old trick developed by the Big Tobacco boys some years ago. Today we call it "reframing" or "rhetorical sleight of hand." He doesn't want to talk about what we all know is true -- that smoking is harmful, that secondhand smoking is hazardous, and that smoking rates drop sharply in areas that ban smoking on the job.
Even though he sounds more like a loose cannon rolling on the poopdeck lately than the intellegent, thoughtful man we know him to be, Fishsticks is no dummy. He knows how to do online research, and he knows that the entire medical and scientific community is against him on this issue.
So what does he do? He tries to sow seeds of doubt about the mountain of medical and scientific data that supports smoking bans. It's an old trick used by many wacko groups, like the people who pester NASA to "prove" the moon landings were real.
Sorry, Craig. I'm not playing your game. I also have no intention of "going away."
You'll note on my blog that in search of the evidence you will not provide, I went to an internationally recognized epidemiologist that, like you, supports smoking bans. He does so for the statistically valid reason that bans do result in fewer people actively smoking, which is a known health hazard. He was also willing to consider that perhaps that reason alone is not sufficient to elevate smoking in bars and restaurants to a level necessitating government intervention -- a topic you won’t even discuss.
What he also laments, to the point that he requested I not use his name, is that people like you from the ALA and other health groups, label him as a "minion of big tobacco" when he points out the exaggerated claims made about the dangers of secondhand smoke. A true professional, he is angered and saddened by the way science is distorted to make a political point. He believes that secondhand smoke is dangerous, but claims made by the ALA et al cannot be justified -- as your silence attests.
Evidence the total scientific debunking of the Helena, Montana, heart attack study, which ban supporter Dr. Brian Rank hailed in the Pioneer Press as a “landmark study” on second hand smoke and you cited on several blogs as evidence of the dangers of secondhand smoke.
So let’s understand, Bob, that I talk to people, intelligent people, that disagree with me. I’ve actually read scientific reports on secondhand smoke -- from a variety of sources -- not just the executive summaries. I’ve posted actual data. Even data supporting your position when it is statistically significant.
You on the other hand, have posted nothing from the “mountain of data” to support your position except standalone numbers -- e.g. 3,000 lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke -- that you cannot support either with methodology or statistical validity. You refuse to consider the policy ramification of smoking bans, nor your obligation to address civic implications. You avoid making a case that secondhand smoke in private establishments rises to the level of necessary government intervention.
You’re damn right, I’m angry, Bob. As my epidemiological contact is angered by the lack of professionalism you demonstrate dealing with statistics and science, I am angered by your total lack of professionalism as a communicator. You may be proud of your organization, but you have tarnished it in the eyes of many.