While I have never voted for one, I am now-and-then grateful that there are (occasionally) principled republicans to counter the nanny-state impulses of the culturally "liberal" (but economically vacillant) democrats.
Austin, Texas, overturned the ridiculous anti-smoking ordinance that was passed early last year, before it went into effect. The particular ordinance that was overturned has been floating around and copied verbatim by many different cities, and mindlessly adopted by their city councils because they just don't like smoking. It also contained strange things like an exemption for "bingo parlors".
There are many (medium to low risk) hazards in modern society, from mild (and not so mild) carcinogens off-gassing from our new carpets and cars, to pesticides on our fruit. The chlorine in public water systems, which kills off harmful bacteria, also happens to form Trihalomethanes - a suspected carcinogen - which we drink from the tap and breathe in the shower everyday. I am not saying that we are all doomed from one thing or another, just trying to put risks in perspective.
I am not a property rights extremist, but I believe that a comprehensive smoking ban is an unreasonable infringement on private property rights for a marginal public health benefit. Comprehensive bans are also elitist, as a greater percentage of lower income people smoke.
Mike Jensvold East Isles
At 01:54 PM 4/23/2004, Andy Driscoll wrote:
YESSS! Thank you, Phyllis - and Louisiana Supreme Court!
Ban the smoking!
Andy Driscoll Saint Paul --
on 4/23/04 10:32 AM, Phyllis Kahn wrote:
> I know why we can't pass a state wide smoking ban. To start we can't get > the bills heard by Republican committee chairs. But I don't understand > what is stopping the city of Minneapolis. Do we really need to fall > behind not just New York City and Austin, Texas but Lexington, Kentucky? > Here is a copy of the relevant article. > > This article from the Star Tribune has been sent to you by Phyllis > Kahn. > > BYLINE: Marc Kaufman > CREDITLINE: Washington Post > HEADLINE: Smoke raises heart attack risk, CDC says > > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the first time, the Centers for Disease Control > and Prevention (CDC) is warning people at risk of heart disease to avoid > buildings and gathering places that allow indoor smoking. > In commentary to a study in the British Medical Journal released > Thursday, the CDC said doctors should advise people with heart problems > that secondhand smoke can significantly increase their risk of a heart > attack. The agency said that as little as 30 minutes' exposure can have > a serious and even lethal effect. > The commentary accompanied a study showing that the number of heart > attacks in Helena, Mont., decreased substantially after the city banned > indoor smoking. > The number quickly returned to its former level after the law was > struck down in court. > That study found that, during the six months in 2002 when the ban was > in effect, the number of heart attacks reported by Helena's single heart > hospital fell by 40 percent. > In his commentary, Terry Pechacek, associate director of science at > CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, wrote that the research underscores > evidence that secondhand smoke rapidly increases the tendency of blood > to clot, which can restrict flow to the heart. > Pechacek said the new study strengthens the growing body of research > pointing to potentially fast and acute reactions to secondhand smoke, in > addition to the long-term damage to nonsmokers who live with smokers. > The CDC has estimated that secondhand smoke causes 35,000 heart disease > deaths a year in the United States, but Pechacek said that estimate is > likely to be revised upward. > "We've said before that secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart > disease in nonsmokers, but this is our first recommendation that > clinicians advise their patients with heart disease to avoid indoor > settings where smoking is allowed," he said. > "We don't make these kind of statements lightly," he said. "What we are > seeing in the data is a substantial biological change that occurs with > even 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke." > Bans disputed > The new recommendation is bound to become part of the often acrimonious > national debate over whether smoking in public places should be banned. > Public health advocates say the bans will save many lives, while > cigarette makers and some businesspeople say the decision should be left > to individual choice. > Just Thursday, the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a ban on smoking in > bars, restaurants and other public places in Lexington, ruling that the > city had acted within its authority to "promote and safeguard public > health." That ban has drawn national attention because Kentucky has the > highest smoking rate in the nation -- about one third of adults there > are smokers, according to the CDC -- and is the second-largest producer > of tobacco. > As both the CDC and authors of the new study acknowledge, the Montana > data are limited by the relatively small number of people involved. > Pechacek said that similarly dramatic reductions in heart attacks are > unlikely to be found in larger populations, but he said the study is > nonetheless important because it offers the best real-world information > to date on the connection between indoor smoking and serious heart > problems. He said studies have been proposed or begun into the how > indoor smoking bans in California, New York City and Delaware have > affected heart attack rates. > The CDC study's authors, Richard Sargent and Robert Shepard of St. > Peter's Community Hospital in Helena, and Stanton Glantz of the > University of California, San Francisco, collected information about the > number of heart attacks from St. Peter's hospital records. > During the six-month period in 2002 when the indoor smoking ban was in > effect, 24 Helena residents suffered acute heart attacks. For the five > years before and after 2002, the average number of heart attacks > reported for Helena residents during the same six months was 40. The > authors found through St. Peter's records that the number of heart > attacks suffered by people living in the area outside Helena -- where > there was no smoking ban -- did not experience the same 2002 dip as > Helena. > Of the patients followed in the study, 38 percent were current smokers, > 29 percent were former smokers and 33 had never smoked. > > > Phyllis Kahn, District 59B > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls >
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
