exterior shots of Democratic convention. Whats with the RED STARS? Shouldnt they be white on blue background with red and white stripes?
Posted By: Bruce Wilkie - Wednesday, August 27th 2008 @ 1:53pm
south carolina supreme court hears OSHA case on second hand smoke
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins Town can't ban smoking, attorney says By Prentiss Findlay (Contact) The Post and Courier Thursday, June 26, 2008
COLUMBIA — An attorney for Bert's Bar argued Wednesday before the state Supreme Court that the town of Sullivan's Island does not have the authority to ban smoking in the workplace.
Bert's Bar attorney Paul Dominick said that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through the state Department of Labor, regulates workplace smoking.
Justice Donald Beatty questioned Dominick's assertion.
"I don't tend to agree that what you say is the case," Beatty told Dominick. "So you're saying we were wrong when we ruled on the Greenville issue?"
Justice James Moore noted there is no state or OSHA regulation that relates to smoking.
"What you're wanting is for this court to be the first court to implement this as far as OSHA is concerned," Moore said. "If we were to agree with you, then we would have to overturn Foothills (the Greenville case)."
Frances Cantwell, representing the town, said a Supreme Court ruling in March that upheld Greenville's smoking ban validates the Sullivan's Island ordinance. Cantwell said the ordinance does not conflict with the state's Clean Indoor Air Act and compared the town ordinance with Charleston's 2 a.m. closing time for bars. Cantwell said all the issues were decided when the court issued its ruling upholding the Greenville smoking ban.
"Sullivan's Island does not punish any conduct that the state regulates," Cantwell said.
The court will issue a written opinion but has not said when it will do so.
Bert's Bar is closed. The owners said part of the reason for closing the longtime island establishment was lost business because of the smoking ban.
The attorney's claim actually has more validity than you know:
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard. Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results. Mark Wernimont Watertown, MN.
Listen and listen good, these bans were never about health. That story about health has been used for well over 100 years. The last time prohibition came down was 1919. The last forty years prior 1919 saw the same lambasted health studies back then on alchohol and tobacco. There is nothing new here going on except the date is changed and the nannies promoting it. The cause is still in effect of the prohibitionists arm. People will always have a certain amount of the ”I WANT TO CONTROL YOU” attitude.
We here in america have become seduced by the constant barrage of daily doses of health study propaganda just like it was dished out in the 40 years running up to 1919…..Our great granparents were seduced by the propaganda artists back then either thru church meetings on sunday morning or thru the newspaper in the evening. Its just today we get it 24-7 from cable networks and newspapers and internet…..It takes the strongest of will of mind and body to OVERCOME such seducing propaganda……They have created a mindset in the public perception that tobacco is evil and peopel using it are the scum of the earth…….
the liberal progressives are the ones who are behind the bans and the psudo-science that pushes it…..the craddle to grave crowd.They are also responsible for the global warming hoax being shoved down every memeber of societies throats……..If you dont pull the string to their nanny mentality your bad motuthed and astrocized as a nay sayer a non-believer……..well I am here to tell you keeping your mind in a world full of propaganda day in and day out has its effects on the population…….
we can call it politically correct hatred towards smokers, people of obesity or just being poor….Trust me when I tell you this crowd of antis is the worse lot of folks to come along in a hundred years.there worse that the VICTORIANS…….the hatred these people hold for a smoker is DEATH……….they dont care about law or rights or freedom when it comes to their AGENDA……..nobody is safe from their hatred………Anyway the outdoor bans and everything else from global warming to second hand smoke are all made-up moral dilemmas to scare people into voting for these fools…….
Remember in the public perception it takes only 6 weeks of drilled propaganda to make a lie the truth and these folks have had 40 years to do it. The last time this group used 40 years to brainwash society we got a constitutional amendment that started prohibition and it wasnt just alchohol, it was tobacco being prohibitied too……..14 states outlawed or prohibitied tobacco use during the volstead act…..prohibition.
Posted By: anonymous - Monday, July 7th 2008 @ 1:56pm
2008-02-02 21:04:58 - A bill which would prevent all restaurants from serving food to obese people - which is being roundly criticized or treated as a bad joke - can be made viable and worthy of serious consideration if it can be refocused on children eating at fast food chain restaurants without a parent or guardian, and only prevents them from ordering food items or meals which are extraordinarily and especially fattening, says the public interest law professor behind the modern anti-obesity movement.
The measure - which even its three sponsors agree has little chance of success in its present form - is being criticized for, among other things, interfering with the free choices of adults, for being so all encompassing that obese travelers could not eat out anywhere and obese employees of restaurants would have to go home to eat, for requiring scientific criteria by which food servers would try to single out the obese, and for many other reasons.
But, prohibiting only the service of especially fattening food items and meals to children who eat at fast food chain restaurants without a parent or guardian would make the law more consistent with many other requirements already placed on children, would not interfere with decisions made by adults for themselves or by parents for children dining with them, and would impose only minor restrictions, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
Banzhaf, who filed the first of ten now-successful fat law suits, and counseled on others as well as inspiring and appearing in "Super Size Me," has been called "the Ralph Nader of junk food," "the man who is taking fat to court," "a major crusader against big tobacco and now among those targeting the food industry," and "the man big tobacco and now fast food love to hate." He has written to the bill's sponsors asking them to refocus the bill.
Banzhaf suggests that the bill be focused exclusively on children, arguing that "While most people have a very strong and almost visceral objection to any governmental restrictions imposed to protect their own health from their own bad judgments, we have a long tradition of protecting children from the own inability to make mature judgments."
"Thus, while we traditionally have not prevented adults from smoking tobacco, abusing alcohol, engaging in very dangerous sports and other activities, etc., we have not hesitated to legislate against children purchasing tobacco or alcohol or fire works, engaging in a variety of activities presenting even moderate dangers (e.g., getting tattoos or even vaccinations, etc.
"Focusing your bill on protecting children rather than adults would remove the major objection to it, and provide a strong argument for it - one likely to be echoed by many groups concerned about child health and welfare."
Banzhaf also suggests that the bill should be limited to fast food chain restaurants, arguing that "Limiting your bill to only fast food chain restaurants would defuse most of the objections from the overwhelming majority of restaurants in the state while at the same time focusing on the great majority of situations where children are able to eat out without parental accompaniment."
"However, since virtually every study points out that fast food restaurants play such a large role in the epidemic of pediatric obesity, such a revised bill would still have a major impact on childhood obesity, and also help establish an important principle."
Also, Banzhaf proposes that the bill limit only the serving of foods which are especially fattening: "It may be hard to argue that obese children should not be allowed to purchase low calorie food items of the type now available (due in part to my efforts) from many fast food chains. This is especially true since there may be many circumstances where it is impossible or at least very inconvenient for them to eat elsewhere."
"By prohibiting only the serving of especially fattening foods to obese children, you significantly reduce the objections to your bill. It is much easier to argue for - and to justify - preventing an obese child from ordering a Mucho Grande Nachos from Taco Bell (at over 1300 calories) than a salad with lo-cal dressing, or apple slices, from McDonald's."
He notes that obese children would still be permitted to order most of the items on a fast food menu. "For example, at McDonald's, even a Double Cheeseburger and Quarterpounder, or a Filet-O-Fish or McChicken, has fewer than 500 calories. Those food items the child should not be served include: the Double Quarter Pounder With Cheese (740 calories), Premium Crispy Chicken Club Sandwich (660 calories), several deserts, etc.
BELOW IS A DRAFT OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED BILL BANZHAF PROPOSES:
No employee of a fast food chain outlet shall serve to any child who appears, to a reasonable person, to be under the age of 16 and to be obese, any single food item reported by the company to contain more than 500 calories, nor any meal where the calories in all of the food items in the meal (including any drinks, but not including sauces not provided at the counter) as reported by the company exceed 1000 calories.
However, all such food items may be served if the child is accompanied by a parent or guardian, or if the child presents a letter or note on the letterhead of a physician, hospital, or other health care entity certifying that he is not obese or that for medical reasons he should be served such food items, or if he or she provides such proof in a form or manner approved by the State Department of Health, including but not necessarily limited to, a wallet-sized card from any of the above sources or from the school which the child attends.
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University Law School FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor 2000 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA (202) 659-4312 // banzhaf.net _________________
Posted By: anonymous - Monday, June 30th 2008 @ 8:15am
action on smoking and health wants smoking banned in ALL homes
Action on Smoking and Health Suggests Banning Smoking in All Homes For the first time, to the best of my knowledge, an anti-smoking group has publicly and officially called for a ban on smoking in all homes, suggesting that this is the next front in the war against smoking. In a press release issued on Wednesday, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)- a Washington, D.C.-based national anti-smoking group - called banning smoking in homes the next front in the war on smoking and cited a new survey showing that a majority of people in Ireland expressed support for a total ban on smoking in homes and cars. According to the press release: "A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling. This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers' movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars. According to a new survey, 57% of the people in Ireland support a ban on smoking in all homes and cars." "This could indicate growing support for smoking bans both here and abroad, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)-- America's first antismoking organization, and the group behind restrictions on smoking in homes in almost three fourths of the states -- because the percentage of smokers in Ireland is substantially higher than in the US." ... "'As politicians in many states continue to debate whether to ban smoking in restaurants, bars, casinos, and other public places, it looks like legislators are once again far behind the growing public sentiment for smoking bans, and also far behind how far judges and regulatory agencies are willing to go,' says Banzhaf.... Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to help smokers quit, it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf." The Rest of the Story This is an important story and perhaps a sentinel moment in the history of the tobacco control movement because to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that an anti-smoking group has publicly and officially called for a ban on smoking in all homes and suggested that this is the next front in the war against smoking. This is a troubling development for many reasons. For one, banning smoking in homes for the purpose of protecting children from secondhand smoke exposure is an appallingly bad place to be in terms of public health policy. It represents an undue invasion of privacy and as well as an unwarranted interference with parental autonomy to make their own decisions regarding health risks to which their children are or are not exposed. Banning smoking in homes to protect children would be qualitatively no different from prohibiting parents from taking their kids to fast food restaurants, feeding them food containing trans-fats, allowing them to engage in risky activities like ice hockey or football, allowing them to watch violence-ridden movies and play violence-ridden video games, letting them go to R-rated movies, and not forcing them to get enough physical activity. Clearly, these other behaviors are not ones which society would choose to regulate. Smoking in the home is qualitatively the same. If one supports a ban on smoking in the home in order to protect children's health, then the same reasoning would lead to support for a ban on each of these other parental behaviors, which would clearly be unacceptable.
Second, banning smoking in homes in order to reduce smoking is even less acceptable. That would be a complete invasion of privacy and autonomy. It would represent completely unenlightened paternalism. Public health practitioners need to remember that there are other important values that need to be preserved in society beyond merely getting people to stop smoking. We also need to make sure that our interventions respect individual autonomy, freedom, and privacy. Banning smoking in homes to reduce smoking rates violates all three of these principles. What scares me most about ASH's latest pronouncement is not merely ASH's support for this policy. I don't think that ASH's support alone would be enough to convince policy makers to enact such policies. However, what scares me the most is that if no other anti-smoking groups speak out publicly to reject ASH's statement, this will become the de facto policy position of the tobacco control movement. And because, as I have learned, dissent is not allowed in tobacco control and you cannot criticize another group in the movement, I fear that no anti-smoking groups will speak out to condemn ASH's support for banning smoking in homes. I must also say that ASH is making the pronouncements of smoking ban opponents look good. Many years ago, when I was lobbying for smoke-free workplace laws, opponents of these laws argued that this was just the first step: workplaces were the first step and eventually we [the antis] would be trying to get smoking banned in the home. I countered these arguments by stating no - you're wrong - we are going to stop after getting smoking banned in the workplace. Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong and the smoking ban opponents were correct. Thanks to ASH, all those smoking ban opponents can now say "I told you so." Why would ASH make a public statement like this? Wouldn't ASH recognize that by doing this, it paints all anti-smoking advocates and groups as being complete fanatics whose ultimate goal is to ban smoking everywhere, even inside the home? Doesn't ASH recognize that its action is going to give smoking ban opponents great ammunition in their fight to oppose these ordinances - that they can now point to ASH's press release as evidence that the ultimate goal of the tobacco control movement is indeed to ban smoking everywhere, including the home?
Posted By: anonymous - Sunday, June 29th 2008 @ 12:54pm
osha on second hand smoke you wont believe this
Ventilation not Legislation
Studies that show secondhand smoke is safer than OSHA permissible exposure limits may help pre-empt every state smoking ban enacted
Mark Wernimont May 29, 2008
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard. And the fact that OSHA has permissible exposure limits (pel) for the components of secondhand smoke means that OSHA federal regulations pre-empt states smoking ban laws.
this means these outdoor bans are as rediculous as the inddor bans.....science has proven SHS harms no one..........
Posted By: anonymous - Friday, June 27th 2008 @ 11:15am
Terrorist Ties?
I saw an interview with Gray Sasser(Head of TN Democrat Party) in regards to a statement made by one of his fellow democrats. The interview was on one of Nashville's TV channels (4 or 5).
Apparently a statement was made to the effect that Obama has some bad connections and some might be with terrorist groups. It's beginning to look that way according to FOX News.
I'm surprised no one picked this up.
We need to keep Obama out of office, what ever it takes. When will he be asked the questions on everybody's mind? The same questions every other candidate has been asked and he has been exempt.$5.00 per gallon gas will be the least of our worries if this man gets elected..
Concerned!!
Posted By: Oscar - Tuesday, June 24th 2008 @ 9:18am
I can finally talk to you. What a gift!
Rush I.ve been telling people exactly what you said for a long time and they still don't get it. HOw the Democrats have oppressed the poor man and black man for years. Nikita Kruschev said he would bring America down without firing a shot and I believe the Democrats are doing this piece by piece. Robert Kennedy said welfare should be a supplement to a man's income and not a way of lfe but then the Democrats kicked the poor man and black man out of the house to maintain their agenda. They forced bussing which broke up communities nad disallowed parents to be involved in education. i don't believe the Democrats care one rats behind about the black or poor man as long as they can keep buying their votes through entitlements. Thank You for giving me ths opportunity to speak with you. Have a fantastic day cause you deserve it.
Posted By: anonymous - Thursday, June 5th 2008 @ 1:19pm
A stroke but not without brain
It the best we can get, and we're world to vote for McCain. We'll see who he select as VP. I hope will be good. I must use the computer to communicate. Because of my stroke. But either of the two older candidates will be a disaster. I long for a Reagan presidency type.
Posted By: Tom LeVan - Tuesday, May 27th 2008 @ 5:51pm
Welcome to Rush Limbaugh's Comment Page
Post away!
Posted By: anonymous - Wednesday, April 16th 2008 @ 10:21am
© 2008
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins
Town can't ban smoking, attorney says
By Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, June 26, 2008
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jun/26/to... LINK TO THIS STORY WAS DELETED we wonder why but I have retained the original story.
COLUMBIA — An attorney for Bert's Bar argued Wednesday before the state Supreme Court that the town of Sullivan's Island does not have the authority to ban smoking in the workplace.
Bert's Bar attorney Paul Dominick said that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through the state Department of Labor, regulates workplace smoking.
Justice Donald Beatty questioned Dominick's assertion.
"I don't tend to agree that what you say is the case," Beatty told Dominick. "So you're saying we were wrong when we ruled on the Greenville issue?"
Justice James Moore noted there is no state or OSHA regulation that relates to smoking.
"What you're wanting is for this court to be the first court to implement this as far as OSHA is concerned," Moore said. "If we were to agree with you, then we would have to overturn Foothills (the Greenville case)."
Frances Cantwell, representing the town, said a Supreme Court ruling in March that upheld Greenville's smoking ban validates the Sullivan's Island ordinance. Cantwell said the ordinance does not conflict with the state's Clean Indoor Air Act and compared the town ordinance with Charleston's 2 a.m. closing time for bars. Cantwell said all the issues were decided when the court issued its ruling upholding the Greenville smoking ban.
"Sullivan's Island does not punish any conduct that the state regulates," Cantwell said.
The court will issue a written opinion but has not said when it will do so.
Bert's Bar is closed. The owners said part of the reason for closing the longtime island establishment was lost business because of the smoking ban.
The attorney's claim actually has more validity than you know:
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
Listen and listen good, these bans were never about health. That story about health has been used for well over 100 years. The last time prohibition came down was 1919. The last forty years prior 1919 saw the same lambasted health studies back then on alchohol and tobacco. There is nothing new here going on except the date is changed and the nannies promoting it. The cause is still in effect of the prohibitionists arm. People will always have a certain amount of the ”I WANT TO CONTROL YOU” attitude.
We here in america have become seduced by the constant barrage of daily doses of health study propaganda just like it was dished out in the 40 years running up to 1919…..Our great granparents were seduced by the propaganda artists back then either thru church meetings on sunday morning or thru the newspaper in the evening. Its just today we get it 24-7 from cable networks and newspapers and internet…..It takes the strongest of will of mind and body to OVERCOME such seducing propaganda……They have created a mindset in the public perception that tobacco is evil and peopel using it are the scum of the earth…….
the liberal progressives are the ones who are behind the bans and the psudo-science that pushes it…..the craddle to grave crowd.They are also responsible for the global warming hoax being shoved down every memeber of societies throats……..If you dont pull the string to their nanny mentality your bad motuthed and astrocized as a nay sayer a non-believer……..well I am here to tell you keeping your mind in a world full of propaganda day in and day out has its effects on the population…….
we can call it politically correct hatred towards smokers, people of obesity or just being poor….Trust me when I tell you this crowd of antis is the worse lot of folks to come along in a hundred years.there worse that the VICTORIANS…….the hatred these people hold for a smoker is DEATH……….they dont care about law or rights or freedom when it comes to their AGENDA……..nobody is safe from their hatred………Anyway the outdoor bans and everything else from global warming to second hand smoke are all made-up moral dilemmas to scare people into voting for these fools…….
Remember in the public perception it takes only 6 weeks of drilled propaganda to make a lie the truth and these folks have had 40 years to do it. The last time this group used 40 years to brainwash society we got a constitutional amendment that started prohibition and it wasnt just alchohol, it was tobacco being prohibitied too……..14 states outlawed or prohibitied tobacco use during the volstead act…..prohibition.
http://www.pr-inside.com/don-t-f...ble-r418545.htm
2008-02-02 21:04:58 - A bill which would prevent all restaurants from serving food to obese people - which is being roundly criticized or treated as a bad joke - can be made viable and worthy of serious consideration if it can be refocused on children eating at fast food chain restaurants without a parent or guardian, and only prevents them from ordering food items or meals which are extraordinarily and especially fattening, says the public interest law professor behind the modern anti-obesity movement.
The measure - which even its three sponsors agree has little chance of success in its present form - is being criticized for, among other things, interfering with the free choices of adults, for being so all encompassing that obese travelers could not eat out anywhere and obese employees of restaurants would have to go home to eat, for requiring
scientific criteria by which food servers would try to single out the obese, and for many other reasons.
But, prohibiting only the service of especially fattening food items and meals to children who eat at fast food chain restaurants without a parent or guardian would make the law more consistent with many other requirements already placed on children, would not interfere with decisions made by adults for themselves or by parents for children dining with them, and would impose only minor restrictions, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
Banzhaf, who filed the first of ten now-successful fat law suits, and counseled on others as well as inspiring and appearing in "Super Size Me," has been called "the Ralph Nader of junk food," "the man who is taking fat to court," "a major crusader against big tobacco and now among those targeting the food industry," and "the man big tobacco and now fast food love to hate." He has written to the bill's sponsors asking them to refocus the bill.
Banzhaf suggests that the bill be focused exclusively on children, arguing that "While most people have a very strong and almost visceral objection to any governmental restrictions imposed to protect their own health from their own bad judgments, we have a long tradition of protecting children from the own inability to make mature judgments."
"Thus, while we traditionally have not prevented adults from smoking tobacco, abusing alcohol, engaging in very dangerous sports and other activities, etc., we have not hesitated to legislate against children purchasing tobacco or alcohol or fire works, engaging in a variety of activities presenting even moderate dangers (e.g., getting tattoos or even vaccinations, etc.
"Focusing your bill on protecting children rather than adults would remove the major objection to it, and provide a strong argument for it - one likely to be echoed by many groups concerned about child health and welfare."
Banzhaf also suggests that the bill should be limited to fast food chain restaurants, arguing that "Limiting your bill to only fast food chain restaurants would defuse most of the objections from the overwhelming majority of restaurants in the state while at the same time focusing on the great majority of situations where children are able to eat out without parental accompaniment."
"However, since virtually every study points out that fast food restaurants play such a large role in the epidemic of pediatric obesity, such a revised bill would still have a major impact on childhood obesity, and also help establish an important principle."
Also, Banzhaf proposes that the bill limit only the serving of foods which are especially fattening: "It may be hard to argue that obese children should not be allowed to purchase low calorie food items of the type now available (due in part to my efforts) from many fast food chains. This is especially true since there may be many circumstances where it is impossible or at least very inconvenient for them to eat elsewhere."
"By prohibiting only the serving of especially fattening foods to obese children, you significantly reduce the objections to your bill. It is much easier to argue for - and to justify - preventing an obese child from ordering a Mucho Grande Nachos from Taco Bell (at over 1300 calories) than a salad with lo-cal dressing, or apple slices, from McDonald's."
He notes that obese children would still be permitted to order most of the items on a fast food menu. "For example, at McDonald's, even a Double Cheeseburger and Quarterpounder, or a Filet-O-Fish or McChicken, has fewer than 500 calories. Those food items the child should not be served include: the Double Quarter Pounder With Cheese (740 calories), Premium Crispy Chicken Club Sandwich (660 calories), several deserts, etc.
BELOW IS A DRAFT OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED BILL BANZHAF PROPOSES:
No employee of a fast food chain outlet shall serve to any child who appears, to a reasonable person, to be under the age of 16 and to be obese, any single food item reported by the company to contain more than 500 calories, nor any meal where the calories in all of the food items in the meal (including any drinks, but not including sauces not provided at the counter) as reported by the company exceed 1000 calories.
However, all such food items may be served if the child is accompanied by a parent or guardian, or if the child presents a letter or note on the letterhead of a physician, hospital, or other health care entity certifying that he is not obese or that for medical reasons he should be served such food items, or if he or she provides such proof in a form or manner approved by the State Department of Health, including but not necessarily limited to, a wallet-sized card from any of the above sources or from the school which the child attends.
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor
2000 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4312 // banzhaf.net
_________________
Action on Smoking and Health Suggests Banning Smoking in All Homes
For the first time, to the best of my knowledge, an anti-smoking group has publicly and officially called for a ban on smoking in all homes, suggesting that this is the next front in the war against smoking.
In a press release issued on Wednesday, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)- a Washington, D.C.-based national anti-smoking group - called banning smoking in homes the next front in the war on smoking and cited a new survey showing that a majority of people in Ireland expressed support for a total ban on smoking in homes and cars.
According to the press release: "A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling. This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers' movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars. According to a new survey, 57% of the people in Ireland support a ban on smoking in all homes and cars."
"This could indicate growing support for smoking bans both here and abroad, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)-- America's first antismoking organization, and the group behind restrictions on smoking in homes in almost three fourths of the states -- because the percentage of smokers in Ireland is substantially higher than in the US." ...
"'As politicians in many states continue to debate whether to ban smoking in restaurants, bars, casinos, and other public places, it looks like legislators are once again far behind the growing public sentiment for smoking bans, and also far behind how far judges and regulatory agencies are willing to go,' says Banzhaf.... Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to help smokers quit, it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf."
The Rest of the Story
This is an important story and perhaps a sentinel moment in the history of the tobacco control movement because to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that an anti-smoking group has publicly and officially called for a ban on smoking in all homes and suggested that this is the next front in the war against smoking.
This is a troubling development for many reasons. For one, banning smoking in homes for the purpose of protecting children from secondhand smoke exposure is an appallingly bad place to be in terms of public health policy. It represents an undue invasion of privacy and as well as an unwarranted interference with parental autonomy to make their own decisions regarding health risks to which their children are or are not exposed.
Banning smoking in homes to protect children would be qualitatively no different from prohibiting parents from taking their kids to fast food restaurants, feeding them food containing trans-fats, allowing them to engage in risky activities like ice hockey or football, allowing them to watch violence-ridden movies and play violence-ridden video games, letting them go to R-rated movies, and not forcing them to get enough physical activity.
Clearly, these other behaviors are not ones which society would choose to regulate. Smoking in the home is qualitatively the same. If one supports a ban on smoking in the home in order to protect children's health, then the same reasoning would lead to support for a ban on each of these other parental behaviors, which would clearly be unacceptable.
Second, banning smoking in homes in order to reduce smoking is even less acceptable. That would be a complete invasion of privacy and autonomy. It would represent completely unenlightened paternalism. Public health practitioners need to remember that there are other important values that need to be preserved in society beyond merely getting people to stop smoking. We also need to make sure that our interventions respect individual autonomy, freedom, and privacy. Banning smoking in homes to reduce smoking rates violates all three of these principles.
What scares me most about ASH's latest pronouncement is not merely ASH's support for this policy. I don't think that ASH's support alone would be enough to convince policy makers to enact such policies. However, what scares me the most is that if no other anti-smoking groups speak out publicly to reject ASH's statement, this will become the de facto policy position of the tobacco control movement. And because, as I have learned, dissent is not allowed in tobacco control and you cannot criticize another group in the movement, I fear that no anti-smoking groups will speak out to condemn ASH's support for banning smoking in homes.
I must also say that ASH is making the pronouncements of smoking ban opponents look good. Many years ago, when I was lobbying for smoke-free workplace laws, opponents of these laws argued that this was just the first step: workplaces were the first step and eventually we [the antis] would be trying to get smoking banned in the home. I countered these arguments by stating no - you're wrong - we are going to stop after getting smoking banned in the workplace. Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong and the smoking ban opponents were correct. Thanks to ASH, all those smoking ban opponents can now say "I told you so."
Why would ASH make a public statement like this? Wouldn't ASH recognize that by doing this, it paints all anti-smoking advocates and groups as being complete fanatics whose ultimate goal is to ban smoking everywhere, even inside the home? Doesn't ASH recognize that its action is going to give smoking ban opponents great ammunition in their fight to oppose these ordinances - that they can now point to ASH's press release as evidence that the ultimate goal of the tobacco control movement is indeed to ban smoking everywhere, including the home?
Studies that show secondhand smoke is safer than OSHA permissible exposure limits may help pre-empt every state smoking ban enacted
Mark Wernimont May 29, 2008
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/j ...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/b ...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/a ...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/a ...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/03/b ...
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
And the fact that OSHA has permissible exposure limits (pel) for the components of secondhand smoke means that OSHA federal regulations pre-empt states smoking ban laws.
this means these outdoor bans are as rediculous as the inddor bans.....science has proven SHS harms no one..........
Apparently a statement was made to the effect that Obama has some bad connections and some might be with terrorist groups. It's beginning to look that way according to FOX News.
I'm surprised no one picked this up.
We need to keep Obama out of office, what ever it takes. When will he be asked the questions on everybody's mind? The same questions every other candidate has been asked and he has been exempt.$5.00 per gallon gas will be the least of our worries if this man gets elected..
Concerned!!