[Speed Gibson,
Saturday February 3, 2007 at 10:46pm]
No Safe Levels?
There is no safe level of "second hand" tobacco smoke according to the Surgeon General of the United States (SGOTUS?). Lacking any real evidence like Death Certificate statistics, this is essentially the only argument the smoking ban Nazis in our Legislature are using to justify their assault on personal liberty and private property.
That's a remarkable statement. Plain old air contains trace amounts of all kinds of chemicals that aren't good for you. Nitrous oxide (NO2) for example is acutely lethal, but apparently no problem at the normal 20 parts per billion ( (0.02 ppmv) of the air you are breathing right now.
That is, inhaling even a modest concentration of NO2 will kill you in an hour but the trace amounts we currently ingest are ... safe. Now explain to me how one can smoke for a month (first hand smoke!) and suffer no ill effects beyond bad breath, yet the smallest trace of second hand smoke is unsafe.
I'm taking the Surgeon General at his word. I can breathe in a deadly poison at 0.02 ppmv without consequence; I have for nearly 58 years now. But the same concentration of second hand smoke is not safe? How have I made it this far?
Very fine. Let's apply this to the Minimum Wage. A $100 an hour minimum wage would kill every job in America. So how can there be a "safe" minimum wage below that?
How about public school funding? Those districts spending the most do the worst. Giving a district even more largess will likely kill off even more dreams and careers. There apparently is no "safe" level of public school funding, either.
How about (surface level) Light Rail, which has killed three people to date on just one line? There clearly is no safe level of this either.
I'm beginning to like the concept. I can criticize what I don't like, without facts, and without thought.
That's a remarkable statement. Plain old air contains trace amounts of all kinds of chemicals that aren't good for you. Nitrous oxide (NO2) for example is acutely lethal, but apparently no problem at the normal 20 parts per billion ( (0.02 ppmv) of the air you are breathing right now.
That is, inhaling even a modest concentration of NO2 will kill you in an hour but the trace amounts we currently ingest are ... safe. Now explain to me how one can smoke for a month (first hand smoke!) and suffer no ill effects beyond bad breath, yet the smallest trace of second hand smoke is unsafe.
I'm taking the Surgeon General at his word. I can breathe in a deadly poison at 0.02 ppmv without consequence; I have for nearly 58 years now. But the same concentration of second hand smoke is not safe? How have I made it this far?
Very fine. Let's apply this to the Minimum Wage. A $100 an hour minimum wage would kill every job in America. So how can there be a "safe" minimum wage below that?
How about public school funding? Those districts spending the most do the worst. Giving a district even more largess will likely kill off even more dreams and careers. There apparently is no "safe" level of public school funding, either.
How about (surface level) Light Rail, which has killed three people to date on just one line? There clearly is no safe level of this either.
I'm beginning to like the concept. I can criticize what I don't like, without facts, and without thought.
1) While experts in general should be treated skepticly at best (IPCC, Y2K experts, etc) the Surgeon General's word is gospel.
2) The smoking ban is necessary for public safety reasons; as is the notification of customers provisions (see bill re: limos, day care, etc).
3) 2nd Hand smoke lingers, thus the need for the aforementioned notification--to warn customers that they are still being exposed.
4) Cannot prohibit smoking in places covered by notification because that would be removing freedoms...and those are precious.
5) Banning tobacco outright is not possible, even if it is the right thing to do it is to never be pursued because of the lessons learned by Prohibition. Additionally, this society does not legislate morality
6) Freedom of association (e.g. business owner choosing to cater with whom he chooses) is trumped by the rights of the non-smoker to "taste their meal fully" in a non-smoking environment.
The bill says that smoking will be banned from all "workplaces" and also defines a workplace as any indoor building where "two or more people" are doing a job with the expectation of compensation.
I asked if the following scenario would be true: I am a smoker and do so in my house. I hire my cousin, my brother and a friend to help hang drywall as I finish my basement. My home now qualifies as a "workplace" and consequently smoking in my own home would be prohibited.
The response: just because there is some way of interpreting the words to include that scenario does not mean that would be the case.
The pro-smoking ban talking points must have something like this to explain the broken application of their own reasonings: "The smoking ban is necessary because (1) it is a public safety concern and trumps property rights, and (2) cannot be fully extended because property rights trump public safety concerns...when one reason fails use the other."
Disgusting slap in the face to all freedom loving people.