A democratic republic makes mistakes.
The Starkville Board of Aldermen passed an ordinance Tuesday that will ban smoking in virtually all public places and places of employment in Starkville. The supporters of this ban have made four gigantic mistakes.
Scientific bias
The no-smoking ordinance says, “Whereas, scientific studies, including studies conducted by the Surgeon General of the United States, have shown that breathing secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard.”
But other scientific studies have shown secondhand smoke isn’t a significant health hazard.
For example, a German study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found virtually no connection between secondhand smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease. The study followed thousands of attendants who worked in German airline cabins that allowed smoking.
One line from the study said: “We found a remarkably low SMR for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low.”
Another study, conducted by James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, concentrated on Californians exposed to environmental smoke for about 40 years. “The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect,” the study said.
However, keep in mind this study was conducted on non-smoker spouses who married and lived with smokers, not people who visit and work at places that allow smoking.
Furthermore, other studies have shown little or no effect from secondhand smoke. The committee responsible for Starkville’s no-smoking ordinance apparently ignored these scientific studies.
Without definitive scientific evidence, a city shouldn’t almost ban public smoking. The new ordinance is biased at best.
Scratch common sense
If a bar, restaurant or place of employment allows smoking and this is unhealthy, don’t go or work there.
For some reason, the Board of Aldermen believes it should relinquish Starkville’s need for common sense by banning smoking in public places.
I have to give it to Starkville’s elected representatives: they don’t mess around. Some people couldn’t make informed decisions as intelligent individuals, so the board eliminates any possibility of having to make a sound choice.
When we let the government and phony interest groups tell us what’s bad and what’s good, we assume we are individuals without the ability to stay out of harm’s way.
We don’t need regulations like the smoking ban when we could execute common sense. It’s not that hard to avoid places that allow smoking. Just don’t walk toward the door.
Property rights
Privately-owned bars and restaurants like Rick’s and Old Venice aren’t technically public places. They are private businesses open to the public.
In other words, they shouldn’t be under the government’s jurisdiction. What’s the point of having a private establishment if you can’t allow legal activities within it?
Smoking is still a legal activity. It goes against the very idea of private property in America to ban a legal activity in a privately-owned establishment.
The bottom line is when you’re in a privately-owned bar or restaurant, it’s only because the owner has allowed it. The owner could kick you out of his business place at any time.
Likewise, the owner should be able to allow a legal activity in his privately-owned business, especially when scientists disagree on the effects of secondhand smoke.
Economical risk
Starkville isn’t known as an economic powerhouse. Moreover, the city shouldn’t take an economic gamble, especially when this gamble has allegedly damaged many businesses.
For instance, bar owners around the Minneapolis area told Minnesota Public Radio in November that a smoking ban caused great losses in revenue. Matthew Lamphear, former owner of Molly Quinn’s in Minneapolis, said: “I immediately had a 25 percent drop in customers.”
Search the Internet and you will find even more sob stories of owners losing businesses after smoking bans. Are these coincidences every time? Probably not.
Therefore, given the evidence I presented, the ordinance should have taken a more cautious step. A reasonable alternative would have been smoking times and rooms. Perhaps bars and restaurants could allow smoking during later hours, and places of employment could allow smoking in certain offices.
To conclude, I share the basic principle of toxicology: “Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it’s the dose that makes the poison.”