Friday, February 15, 2008

Sarcastic smoking ban post

My fellow private citizen Dr. John Crawford insisted that any modification of the smoking ban would cause the deaths of citizens. If life and death are the sole criteria for legislation, I propose that we do all we can to discourage nonsmokers from going to bars at all. Since all smokers will die from their smoking habit anyway, allowing them to drink alcohol would be like giving morphine to a terminally ill patient. Since nonsmokers are the class of citizens that this city strives to protect, we must do all we can to encourage them to refrain from vice altogether.

16 comments:

Templeton Peck said...

That is really quite an astonishing statement. I assume that is also in favor of the following, all of which would immediately save untold lives:

(1) Lowering the speed limit to 5 miles per hour and only permitting cars made entirely out of Nerf material

(2) Outlawing sky diving, drinking, power tools, swimming pools, riding motorcycles, and sex, other than for procreation

Add your own.

Robert Enders said...

All kidding aside, Crawford did state that he was opposed to seat belt laws. He really did say that.

Did you all know that it is more dangerous to ride a motorcycle WITH a helmet than it is to ride in a car WITHOUT a seatbelt or airbags? Indiana used to have a helmet law but it was repealed. My guess is that the insurance lobby is behind the inconsistency. Insurance companies like motorcyclists because they are involved in fewer accidents than cars. Except when they do have an accident, its more likely to be fatal.

Bobby G. said...

TP:
I like the NERF car idea...you might be onto something.

RE:
Crawford seems to be a study in duplicity.

If someone REALLY wants to make the air CLEANER, how's about a mandatory vehicle INSPECTION every year testing for exhaust emissions?

I tried to convince the governor (O' Bannon) years ago about doing that...never heard back.
wonder why?

B.G.

Tim Zank said...

The 2nd hand smoke exposure in Piere's for one night of skirt chasing is less harmful than standing at Calhoun and Main when a citilink bus takes off.

It's not a valid health issue, it's a preference by overbearing, know-it-all busybodies who feel they are morally superior to everyone else, as they KNOW what is best for EVERYONE. Just ask 'em, they'll tell ya.

I honestly never imagined it was possible for a government body to outlaw the use of a completely legal, sanctioned and taxed product on private property.

Of course, I never thought anybody would tell me what to eat either, (besides my mom) and we all see where that's going.

Craig said...

Last time I checked you don't get drunk from standing within proximity of alcohol.

Robert Enders said...

Right Craig. But if we are to protect the health of nonsmokers, we must discourage them from getting near the alcohol in the first place. There is just too much temptation in a bar.

Robert Fuller said...

Tim I liked the bus comment. So true I will still smoke. I will just outside city limits. New Haven can have money.

Robert Enders said...

Clearly all that bus exhaust is driving Fuller out of town. When is our city council going to step up and protect his health?

Tim Zank said...

Craig sez: "Last time I checked you don't get drunk from standing within proximity of alcohol."

Please document for us A case of second hand cigarette smoke listed as the cause of death for anyone.

I agree, you will not get drunk from standing within proximity of alcohol, but you can sure get stupid standing within proximity of bullshit information structured to fit a particular agenda.

Templeton Peck said...

Tim's post is 100% right.

Also, as I've said before on this blog and others, and not one person has ever challenged me, the smoking ban had nothing to do with protecting nonsmokers and everything to do with discouraging people from smoking. You can debate whether the latter is a proper matter for a City Council but I wish they would have been honest about the reasons. They still have people like Craig duped into thinking that the reason was to protect people who enter into a bar voluntarily from secondhand smoke, a truly preposterous proposition.

Robert Enders said...

Tim,
There have been documented cases in which a person developed lung cancer from LONGTERM exposure to secondhand smoke. A guy can walk into a bar, smell smoke and decide he doesn't like it, then leave. He has not suffered any significant damage to his lungs from the experience.

Templeton,
People may have reasons for supporting a policy that are different for the reasons that they claim to have. A person might claim that he wants universal health care because he is worried about the poor, but he in fact may be too lazy to file insurance claims.

I try to only counter the arguements that a person makes out loud. If I claim that a smoking ban supporter feels that way just because of personal preference, then he'll claim that I like the smoke and I am trying to push my personal preference on him. If I accuse a person of secretly owning a bar in New Haven, he'll accuse me of secretly owning tobacco stock.

gadfly said...

Tim: Gosh, didn't you read this story from last week?

Michigan Bar Employee Dies From Second-Hand Smoke

A 19-year-old woman shows up for work at a smoke-filled Michigan bar, appearing both healthy and happy. She's worked there without incident for several months. Fifteen minutes later, she collapses and dies within minutes of that.

A mystery?

No. An autopsy showed the woman died of a severe asthma attack. Dr. Ken Rosenman, a professor of medicine and chief of the division of occupational and environmental medicine at Michigan State University's College of Medicine, said the death is directly linked to the secondhand smoke in her workplace.


The unanswered questions are: 1) How did a 19 year old get a job serving booze in a bar? 2) Why would a girl with severe asthma take a job in a bar, even if she could get one? 3) What was the cause of death listed on the death certificate? 4) Which came first, the asthma or the smoke?

Fr. Fozy Bear said...

Administrative Oversight Of The Blog:

I edited the post slightly as an issue of respect that I believe should be given for someone's accomplishment in education and individual achievement, no matter how much the author or other party members choose to disagree with his pompous arrogant claims, he still deserves the respect of office.

Apologies go to Doctor Crawford for the omission of his correct title.

+Kenneth White, Jnr.
LPAC Secretary

Tim Zank said...

Gadfly, that's typical isn't it? The headline claims 2nd hand smoke killed her but the autopsy is pretty freakin clear. She died of an asthma attack, which means standing on the corner of Main and Calhoun in Fort Wayne ant given day when a bus takes off would have dropped this poor girl like a rock too.

Robert, this guy from MSU is desperately trying to be the FIRST to list cause of death as second hand smoke, as it hasn't happened yet. There is no documented case of death by 2nd hand cigarette smoke.

For the rest of you that are convinced SHS kills all those exposed, try using the common sense approach to a rational answer. If it actually killed people, where are the bodies? There should be millions of bodies after 200 plus years of second hand cigarette in smoke bars.

In summary, it's bullshit.

Robert Enders said...

Father Fozy,
Some people are fussier over titles than other. Usually when I hear Dr. Thomas Hayhurst's, Dr. Ron Paul's, or Dr. John Crawford's name in the media, their medical title is omitted. No disrespect is intended, I just save 3 keystrokes when I omit their title. It is usually proper to include the title when the audience is not familiar with the doctor being mentioned. If the audience knows that the person is a doctor, it is usually acceptable to refer to them by their name alone.

Tim,
It is my understanding that there is a relationship to exporsure secondhand smoke over a long period of time and cancer. Everyone inhales a little bit of smoke. Smoke is a gas, it spreads out throughout the atmosphere. We're all inhaling combustion molecules from cigars, cigarettes, and joints being smoked around the world. It's people who live with smokers for a long period of time who are actually affected by it.

Saul Alinsky said...

Chantix is a fairly new drug designed to help people quit smoking. It also has the ability to help people with other addictions such as alcoholism. Chantix works by targeting nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain. http://www.chantixhome.com/