"Second hand smoke is a health risk. It's accepted science and law. That isn't debatable."
It's accepted science? Pardon me - accepted by whom? Not debatable? Really?It's not just that people who spout such crap are complete ignoramuses on the subject, it's that their beliefs are built on a bias that precedes and determines their opinion, whatever the facts may be.
Fact: 80 percent of the epidemiological studies made over the past 50 years show only a weak or statistically insignificant connection between secondhand smoke and either lung cancer or heart disease.
ANTI-SMOKING CRUSADER Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, a world-class epidemiologist (Harvard/Yale), president of the American Council on Science and Health, said at the time the New York City smoking ban went into effect (speaking for herself and her Council of 380 scientists): "There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease," and, "The link between secondhand smoke and premature death is a real stretch." Moreover, Dr. Philippe Even, a world-renowned pulmonologist and past president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker, stated flatly that bans on smoking in public places –– the psychosis, he calls it –– are based on "Absolutely nothing!"
And are we now to accept as a new principle of rationality that if something becomes LAW, then that determines the truth of whatever evidence the law was based on? Holy smoke! Have you ever read Judge Osteens decision on the 1992 EPA's decision that pronounced secondhand smoke a Class A carcinogen? No, I thought not.
People are sheep (sheeple), and the more decisions confirm their own prejudices the more sheeplike they become, and the more reasons they will blindly accept anything that will confirm their prejudices. And that's a fact, too.
Just one question: if secondhand smoke is NOT a health risk to bartenders and staff, then what right has the government to place bans on smoking in bars and restaurants? I'd like to hear a straight answer to that question from just one of you instead of all this ignorant poop you've been giving us. Just answer that one question and we can take it from there.
Libertarian meme, my foot!
All counter-arguments to this wacky little piece break against the rocks of the one argument that smoking should be banned in bars and restaurants because "jobs aren't as plentiful as they used to be," an argument that would fall apart if jobs WERE as plentiful as they used to be! So, Mat, just exactly upon what principle of governance does that argument rest? He also brings in the argument that "there exists a communitarian aspect to any business that is open to the public," a phrase that wouldn't be out of place in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. Does that mean that a committee of patrons are to dictate the policies of a bar owner according to whatever new fad or uninformed perception or product of propaganda may be afloat in the public air? Why of course! else what's a mob for? As to the protection of staff, a study found that your average bartender inhales in secondhand smoke the equivalent of 6 cigarettes A YEAR! Obviously, DANGER LURKING! Bans have closed countless businesses throughout the world, deprived smokers of a place to socialize and relax, thrown people out of work, and cut down on tips that waiters and waitresses and bartenders depend upon to make a living, but you'll find none of that in Mat's piece. Instead, it's all, We shall dictate, and never mind that a bar owner always has the option of forbidding smoking if he so chooses, which was what I though was part of what a free society was supposed to be all about.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper