Fake Smoking Ban Facts

Author: Michael Kraft
Published: June 14, 2007 
Check out the free newsletter!
Related: National News     North Carolina News     Local News     Key Issues     Free Speech     Charlotte News     Offbeat     Charlotte Politics     American Culture     Liberals     Culture

Nonsmoking workers exposed to secondhand smoke are 34% more likely to get lung cancer. Waiters and waitresses have a 50% greater risk of lung cancer than other workers mostly because of ETS exposure.
(National Cancer Institute 1999)

Then quit, all jobs have risks, if this “fact” is true, then they shouldn’t take this work. Private businesses hire those that “can” do the work; this is the nature of a free country, and free enterprise.

Ventilation systems are not the solution; there is no way to completely remove secondhand smoke from an enclosed environment.

There is also no way to completely remove emissions from cars and industry from the environment. These Smoke-free leftists don’t seem to understand the issue.
The issue is the right to open the establishment you choose to open. Customers don’t have to enter the building. They can go somewhere else, but that is the owner’s choice of what to offer his patrons.

San Francisco’s first nonsmoking bar opened in 1992. When the bar owner advertised for bartenders to fill job openings, emphasizing that it would be a smoke-free environment, he had more than 600 applicants.

How do job applicants have anything to do with the right of owners to choose? Keep in mind the media attention given to the “first nonsmoking bar opened”, it was obviously published which would increase the applications.
Also they don’t compare this to anything, was there also a normal establishment opened the same day in the same neighborhood? Since statistics are comparative, this “fact” is completely without any point.

60,000 current and former flight attendants have filed a $5 billion class action suit against a number of tobacco companies because of illnesses caused by their exposure to secondhand smoke on flights before the 1989 smoking ban. Exposure was equivalent to actively smoking about once cigarette per flight.

These people never saw a cigarette pack, they didn’t see the smoke, they didn’t know about it? What you have is 60,000 over the hill stewardesses with minimal retirement savings told they can get their hands on a share of some cash from a settlement. This “fact” proves greed and has nothing to do with health.

Fake “facts” like this always inject large numbers to try and install some false importance.
(New York Times, Nov 6, 1994, p.A11 & Audio Digest Internal Medicine, November 3, 1993)
Workers who take four ten minute work breaks a day to smoke actually work one month less per year than workers who don’t take smoking breaks.
(Action on Smoking and Health, March 1994)

This may be the dumbest “facts” on the page. So if you take 40 minutes of breaks and compare that to not taking breaks, you work less? Wow what an amazing piece of reporting.
And if the non smokers go outside for fresh air 4 times a day then they would be even. This fake fact has nothing to do with smoking.

The costs of health care, increased fire insurance, damage to property, absenteeism, and lost productivity average as much as $4,600 for each smoker per year.
(Weiss, Seattle University)

Now if they go after the losses from illegal immigration, alcohol, fraud, wasted resources from smoking-ban litigation, lost resources from flight attendant lawsuits, and about everything else in the world that has some sort of negative effect, then they would have some legitimacy.
Smoking is an easy scapegoat for activists with too much time and no concept of personal liberty or private property rights.

No requirements for smoke-free areas in state government worksites, private worksites or restaurants.

Who smokes in government offices? I have never seen a person in a professional workplace or indoor office smoking a cigarette? And who is trying to get permission to smoke at work?
Leftist activists include this fake agenda to get restaurants included in a wide-scale theft of liberty.

Libraries, museums, college dormitories and health care instructional buildings “may be designated as nonsmoking.” State controlled buildings, such as auditoriums, may establish nonsmoking areas if at least 20% of the interior space is designated as smoking, including a designated smoking area in lobbies, unless it is “physically impracticable.”

Who is smoking in hospitals, dorms and libraries? These libs apparently need to fill space, because nobody is fighting to smoke in the museum?

Now here is the grand finale
NC Opinions on Secondhand Smoke
64% prefer smoke-free restaurants
62% feel government should regulate smoking in public places to limit SHS exposure
66% feel businesses should do more than they are currently doing to protect their employees from SHS
70% feel businesses should do more than they are currently doing to protect their customers from SHS

20-32% of Americans smokes, so these above figures mean nothing more than everyone just voted for themselves. Actually it appears more non-smokers are crossing over than smokers.

Our country is 50% white, that doesn’t mean we all get to vote laws based on race, just because there are more of us?

Just like the above stat that just shows that NON-SMOKERS think smokers should lose their rights.

smoking ban smoking ban facts smoking ban nc smoking ban Charlotte smoking ban North Carolina smoking ban stats smoking stats smoking facts smoking bans smoking in bars nc smoker laws smoker bans smoker rights

Powered by PrestoGifto.com™

Powered by PrestoGifto.com™

Fake Smoking Ban Facts