Comments on: The Economic Impact of Smoking Bans http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/01/the-economic-im-2.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:03:33 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Johnnyb http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/01/the-economic-im-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-2348 Johnnyb Wed, 15 Apr 2009 06:20:15 +0000 http://www.showmeliving.org/daily/?p=137#comment-2348 Joseph Bast and the rest of the academic types should be wise enough to show a little common sense on the issue of second hand smoke and recognize that its nothing but a fraudulent scare tactic, and nothing mmore. By the same logic that justifies a full ban because of the minute dangers of second hand smoke, we would also have to outlaw places that burn wood to cook food, since wood smoke contains all the same dangerous chemicals as tobacco smoke and is produced in in far greater quantities. We should outlaw bon fires, camp outs, and any other activity that exposes children to the danger of wood smoke. No this issue with smoking for the general population is entirely about the smell, while the issue with public health authorities is entirely about the culture which is permissive towards tobacco smoke, and smokers. To destroy the culture of tobacco smokers, you have to force them out of their comfortable spaces in bars, coffee houses and bowling alleys, and make them stand on street corners in the weather, smoking like 2nd class citizens. This is why no refuge is afforded to smokers, not because of any fraudlent notion that the dangers of second hand smoke is real. Remember that the Stated goal is a "Smoke-free America." How can you make America smokefree, when 1 in 4 Americans enjoys smoking? Joseph Bast and the rest of the academic types should be wise enough to show a little common sense on the issue of second hand smoke and recognize that its nothing but a fraudulent scare tactic, and nothing mmore. By the same logic that justifies a full ban because of the minute dangers of second hand smoke, we would also have to outlaw places that burn wood to cook food, since wood smoke contains all the same dangerous chemicals as tobacco smoke and is produced in in far greater quantities. We should outlaw bon fires, camp outs, and any other activity that exposes children to the danger of wood smoke.

No this issue with smoking for the general population is entirely about the smell, while the issue with public health authorities is entirely about the culture which is permissive towards tobacco smoke, and smokers. To destroy the culture of tobacco smokers, you have to force them out of their comfortable spaces in bars, coffee houses and bowling alleys, and make them stand on street corners in the weather, smoking like 2nd class citizens. This is why no refuge is afforded to smokers, not because of any fraudlent notion that the dangers of second hand smoke is real. Remember that the Stated goal is a “Smoke-free America.” How can you make America smokefree, when 1 in 4 Americans enjoys smoking?

]]> By: Joseph Bast http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/01/the-economic-im-2.html/comment-page-1#comment-708 Joseph Bast Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:11:42 +0000 http://www.showmeliving.org/daily/?p=137#comment-708 Eric Dixon just directed me to this essay, which is excellent. He and I come from different places -- I'm a life-long smoker, enjoy it greatly, but I also understand that many people find second-hand smoke to be unpleasant and wish to be protected from it. Smoking bans, as Eric writes, ought to be narrowly tailored to respect the rights of property owners as well as customers. While Eric doesn't mention it, the debate surrounding the health effects of second-hand smoke are key to the debate over bans. If even small and intermittant exposure to second-hand smoke poses a health hazard to nonsmokers, then there are grounds for even libertarians to embrace bans on common law (trespass) grounds. So while few of us involved in the debate are public health experts or epidemiologists, we find ourselves grappling with the misuse of science and use of fear tactics in the regulatory debate. I address many of these issues in my little book on tobacco control issues titled "Please Don't Poop in My Salad," the entire contents of which are available online on The Heartland Institute's Web site http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/poop.pdf. Joe Joseph Bast President The Heartland Institute jbast@heartland.org. Eric Dixon just directed me to this essay, which is excellent. He and I come from different places — I’m a life-long smoker, enjoy it greatly, but I also understand that many people find second-hand smoke to be unpleasant and wish to be protected from it. Smoking bans, as Eric writes, ought to be narrowly tailored to respect the rights of property owners as well as customers.

While Eric doesn’t mention it, the debate surrounding the health effects of second-hand smoke are key to the debate over bans. If even small and intermittant exposure to second-hand smoke poses a health hazard to nonsmokers, then there are grounds for even libertarians to embrace bans on common law (trespass) grounds. So while few of us involved in the debate are public health experts or epidemiologists, we find ourselves grappling with the misuse of science and use of fear tactics in the regulatory debate.

I address many of these issues in my little book on tobacco control issues titled “Please Don’t Poop in My Salad,” the entire contents of which are available online on The Heartland Institute’s Web site http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/poop.pdf.

Joe

Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
jbast@heartland.org.

]]>