Restricted Area

The Federal Government, The States, and Greedy Attorneys are teaming up to take away the rights we have cherished for over 2 centuries. How are they doing this, and why?

RIGHT HERE IN TEXAS: The anti-smoking crusade has arrived in Texas in a big way recently, with Austin, Dallas, Laredo, El Paso, and San Antonio assailing the rights of restaurant and bar owners to permit smoking. To the anti-tobacco people, this has taken on the aura of a “holy war” motivated by the purest of motives – public health.
THE NICO-NAZIS: The history of tobacco had only one significant ban prior to the late 1980’s. This particular ban was instituted by Nazi Germany. Hitler called smoking “masturbation of the lungs”, and considered it to be a noxious habit. Women were prohibited from buying cigarettes, and one popular Nazi poster had the slogan “German Women Do Not Smoke” emblazoned on it. Smokers were ostracized as social misfits. The Nazis believed that tobacco and coffee both caused cancer. They banned advertising of tobacco and made all public places smoke-free. All of this was done in the name of promoting public health. Later, the Nazis went after alcohol. Thousands of persons who smoked and drank were sterilized by Nazi physicians as a result of the “Law To Prevent Degenerative Offspring”, a German public health measure. Probably most of the anti-tobacco people in Hitler’s day were truly interested in promoting public health. Just like they are today. But there is always a problem when you create any kind of law. The creation of any law creates a class of lawbreakers. It also creates a class of law enforcers. This gives an increment of additional power to the government, which controls enforcement. Although the Nazi bans almost certainly saved some lives, they were not worth the loss of personal liberties they engendered.
THE FEDS STAKE IN THE GAME: The primary rationale for banning smoking is the risk of secondhand smoke. In 1993 the EPA released a study that said secondhand smoke was carcinogenic. Ever since then, this same report has been used to initiate bans on smoking all over the US. What the anti-smoking lobby does not like to tell people is that the report was investigated by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, both of which called its’ conclusions absolutely false and misleading. In subsequent legal proceedings, the Federal Courts overturned the study and chastised the EPA  for playing politics in reaching unfounded conclusions. The true reason the EPA falsified this report is because they want tobacco to be classified as “indoor pollution”. If they can convince everyone that secondhand smoke is a dangerous pollutant, they can regulate it.
Meanwhile another federal agency, the FDA, continues its’ effort to declare tobacco a “drug”.  The stakes are huge. The size and budget of the FDA would double if they succeed. It is in their interest to regulate tobacco as a drug.
These two federal agencies are fighting over this gigantic tobacco football. The winner will be in command of the “smoking police” and be able to set fines, fees, taxes, and other controls on the entire industry. Companies, retailers, and smokers will all be under their control.
In their efforts to demonize tobacco as a dangerous drug or toxic pollutant, these agencies and their sycophants have committed more egregious errors and omissions than the tobacco companies ever contemplated in their smoke-filled chambers. They intentionally ignore the beneficial effects of nicotine. Although they are well aware of the proven fact that nicotine acts as a preventative and therapeutic remedy for Parkinson’s Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease, the FDA refuses to admit the medicinal properties of tobacco. They ignore research that demonstrates that nicotine has been successful in prevention of Tourette’s Syndrome, that it plays a role in memory improvement, and that it even acts as a preventative to Ulcerative Colitis. Yet they approve nicotine gum and patches. They are aware that there is no significant difference in lung cancer rates for smokers vs. nonsmokers below the age of 70. (After age 70, the rates are much higher for smokers.)
The EPA has been trying to prove tobacco smoke is a dangerous form of pollution for over 30 years. So far, they have never been able to do so.  They ignore the study conducted in 1993 by the American Cancer Society which concluded: “There is no credible scientific evidence that ’secondhand smoke’ causes illness in adults.”  They also ignore the largest study ever published, commissioned by the British Medical Journal, which followed 35,561 nonsmoking spouses of smokers from 1959 to 1998 and concluded that there is no causal relation between environmental smoke and smoking related mortality.  This study authoritatively proved that secondhand smoke presents no health risk to anyone.
Perhaps James Enstrom of UCLA, lead author of the report, said it best, stating that “maybe the feelings about this issue are so strong that no one cares about the evidence.”
THE GREED FACTOR: It all started when some ambitious lawyers smelled blood, and asked a judge to certify a class-action lawsuit. The defendants were the tobacco companies, and the plaintiffs were every cigarette smoker. They found a judge who would allow this, although the smokers didn’t ask to be represented. The attorneys sued for more money than the tobacco companies were worth. Settlements were eventually made. The attorneys took billions of dollars off the top in contingency fees. The cases mostly settled out of court.
Theoretically, the smokers “won” these cases. But, since it would not be practical to pay this money to the smokers themselves, it was simply given to the states to spend however they wanted. The costs of the lawsuits was of course paid by the smokers themselves in the form of higher prices.
So, the “victorious” smokers were forced to pay the state and lawyers the largest legal settlement in history. In Texas alone it was $17.3 billion. Texas Attorney General Dan Morales was indicted for playing fast and loose with tobacco settlement money. Lawyers lined up like hogs at a trough. Most of them didn’t do jack shit. Morales tried to pay $520 million to an associate who allegedly never even worked on the case!
The states, including Texas, are currently going through some lean budget times. They have already spent the tobacco settlement, so now they are looking for more. They have recently imposed a $1 per pack tax increase. In Washington, there are calls for a tax increase of $2 per pack. Soon, cigarettes will be only for the rich. There still won’t be enough tax money for the government. They (and the lawyers) will start looking for new targets. In fact, it is already happening.
BAD FUTURE FOR BEER DRINKERS: The tobacco wars have generated a blueprint that is now being used to attack junk food and gun manufacturers. It is only a matter of time before they go after alcohol. State and federal agencies will soon go after alcohol “in the public interest”. The lawyers will use tobacco war rulings as clearly defined legal precedents to sue distillers until a beer costs $10, and only the rich will be able to afford it. It won’t be hard to prove that beer can be harmful. Beer and liquor drinkers will be certified as class action plaintiffs, against their wishes. These ‘victims” will “win” again, and be forced to pay the lawyers and the government, just like the smokers. This time it will be easier, because legal precedents have been set. Moonshining and smuggling will become rampant. A new class of criminals will be created. There will be stricter enforcement. Then one day they will go after coffee, another addictive stimulator of neurotransmitters. The lawyers will find cash-strapped states anxious to participate in these schemes, while politicians on both sides of the aisle pound the pulpits of paranoia.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: Public health doctrine in America has drifted from public-good concerns, such as sanitation or contagious diseases, toward a frontal attack on individual choices and politically incorrect lifestyles. Government agencies would like to regulate and tax everything you do, including your sex life. This is being done to “protect” society. It is collective thinking, a Marxist principle. The amazing thing is that so many political conservatives have signed on to this idea.  Large contingents of Republicans and Democrats alike have blindly embraced the incursions on liberty perpetrated by these uninformed do-gooders.
BARS & RESTAURANTS: Soon these misguided enemies of freedom will be trying to wreak havoc here as well. The debate over prohibiting smoking in hospitality businesses hinges on accurate measurements of exposure among employees. According to recent field studies, a bartender in a smoking-permitted tavern (with no smoke-abatement systems in place) will inhale the approximate equivalent of one-500th of a cigarette per shift. These measurements were taken by means of monitors worn by bartenders and waitresses, with the collected suspended particulate analyzed in a laboratory. These findings correlate with measurements cited by the Environmental Protection Agency itself. The EPA adds that there is no risk to health among those who actively smoke three or fewer cigarettes per day. These employees would have to work six days a week for 40 years in order to ingest the equivalent of smoking just one pack of cigarettes. I think they might survive it.
A 1993 survey  found that significant air pollution levels in restaurants were generated by grilling meats, in some cases measured at twice the levels generated by tobacco smoke. Meat smokes are high in heterocyclic amines — a known, prevalent indoor air carcinogen. Another study in 1999 proved that driving a car exposes a person to over 600 times the amount of harmful particulates contained in secondhand tobacco smoke. These findings have never generated the media attention that secondhand smoke does.
RECENT: Smoking bans have had these results…
*California’s smoking ban was not without victims. More than 1,000 bars, taverns and “mom & pop” restaurants closed their doors, with thousands of low-income people out of work.
*In Dallas, after 90 days of the smoking ban, the Hotel Association said that 16 reporting hotels cited combined losses in revenue of over $14 million. The convention business died in Dallas. Jobs were lost and businesses closed. It was a full-scale disaster.
*A citywide ban in Ottawa closed almost all downtown bars and restaurants as patrons flocked to the suburbs.
*In British Columbia, a disastrous experiment with a ban lasted 80 days. 910 workers were laid off, with multimillion-dollar losses in the hospitality and tourism industries.
*In NYC, the enormous $2 per pack increase created a whole class of smugglers and criminals, while city revenues for tobacco sales actually dropped. People are still smoking, they are simply buying cigarettes the same way a pothead buys weed – illegally from “dealers”. Smoking has been criminalized by municipal greed and political correctness.
The stupid thing about this is that most restaurants are already smoke free. For example, two-thirds of the restaurants in Harris County already prohibited smoking before Houston banned smoking. Two-thirds of people do not smoke. Those numbers seemed to line up nicely. It’s wasn’t broke, but soon someone had to “fix” it.
PROPERTY RIGHTS: The owner of any property should be able to determine whether to admit smokers, nonsmokers, or both. Customers or employees who object may go elsewhere. They would not be relinquishing any right they ever possessed. By contrast, when a businessman is forced to effect an unwanted smoking policy on his own property, the government violates his rights. Private property does not belong to the public. Private and public are intentionally being blurred in order to increase government control over all property. There is no reason for the government to interfere in matters best left to the owners of bars, restaurants and work places.
What about cigarette smoke harming others? In a free society, as opposed to a dictatorship or collectivism, the matter is resolved through private property rights. If you own your house, restaurant, airplane or workplace, another person or entity does not have the right to smoke on your property without your permission.
Alternatively, in the house, restaurant, airplane or workplace that I own, another entity doesn’t have the right to prohibit smoking. If you don’t like the fact that smoking is permitted in my restaurant, you can go elsewhere. Similarly, I can do the same if you don’t permit smoking. A free people will always want property owners to decide such issues for themselves. It’s less arbitrary and political. It’s called capitalism.
COMMON SENSE: It’s too bad everyone can’t accept the notion that some people are going to do things that are bad for them. The decision to smoke may be a terrible one, with great risks to their health. But that’s life. People make risky health-care choices every day in the way they drive, in the foods they eat, in their failure to exercise, in their desire to consume alcohol or over the counter pills for dieting, sleep, etc. The state can’t police everyone, particularly for activities that are legal — including smoking. If the government wants to educate people, fine. But let individuals lead their own lives.
Very few people would choose to live a life on a diet of nothing but Soya and wheat paste supplemented with ground seaweed – but if they did, they’d probably live a lot longer than by chomping down on cheeseburgers and pizza. But, should government be given the power to make this sort of decision for people?  I believe most people would say “hell no!”.
NONSMOKERS AFFECTED: Every individual has the right to decide what makes them happy in life and what enjoyments of life they will engage in despite whatever inherent risk those enjoyments might entail.
If we cannot get our government back in the business of preserving our liberties (instead of taking them away), our children can and will be denied such ordinary pleasures as: motorcycles, beer, boating, skiing, diving, skating, driving cars,  eating oysters,  playing baseball, and a thousand other things that can be harmful to the individual or society as a whole. They will eat a state-approved diet, perform state-approved recreational activity, and work in a state-approved job.  Any deviation will be subject to criminal penalties.
Even nonsmokers should see this series of events for what it is: the rights of the collective society taking precedence over the rights of the individual. You may call it communism or fascism. The Federal government, State governments, and lawyers are all working together to make it happen for their own selfish reasons. Most of the press and public are following along blindly, and even eagerly.
FINIS: I support smoking (and drinking) bans in all Government buildings. It makes sense. But when a man can’t do what he wants with his own private property, he is no longer the owner. His property has effectively been seized.
I am intelligent enough to know that if the government is allowed to force a property owner to exclude smoking, they will soon be telling publishers what they can and cannot print in their magazines and publish on the internet.    (GATOR)

DISCLAIMER: Fuck disclaimers. Go ahead and sue me bitch.