Saturday, June 04, 2005

No Quitter.

I am a smoker. I will have to quit someday, but today is not that day.

I would love to get my hands on the self-important, meddling yahoos that made people think the Ramsey/Hennepin County smoking bans were a good idea. I am not an advocate of cancer, nor do I think that a lack of evidence supporting the dangers of second hand smoke is synonymous with it necessarily being good for you, BUT...

There are major flaws in the statistics used to back up the "movement," and if you ask me, having to take out radio adds to get people to come to the cities following said ban is just sad. Take away people's ability to enjoy a beer and a smoke simultaneously and then beg them to come spend money anyway? Pathetic. What cracks me up the most is that after all their huffing and puffing that the ban would have no noticable effect on business revenues, bars and restaraunts are now having to cry poverty.

Here's my take on the situation:

1) There is no way that the amount of non-smokers that would be induced to begin patronizing area bars by a smoking ban could possibly offset the number of stubborn smokers that would be induced to just drink at home... or in Washington County (a stone's throw!).

2) Having worked many years as a waitress, a bartender, and the like, I can say that the primary, regular clientele of most bars are not health fanatics. This includes the people who work there. In fact, I would be willing to bet that unlike in the general population, smokers outnumber non-smokers in the bar and restaraunt industry by at least 2 to 1, if not more.
In this sense, the ban has been effected to serve the needs of the minority rather than the majority, and the activist claims that said ban was intended to protect the employees are largely moot. Most of those employees are pissed that they now have to go outside to smoke, just like the rest of us.

In short, it seems to me the whole thing is just an exercise in testing how much the general population will put with when it comes to the government trying to force them to live healthily. The only law more ridiculous is the seat-belt law. "We are the state government, and we demand that you keep yourself safe." Huh? I will stand firmly behind this law as soon as there is a plague of innocent bystanders being killed because some other person forgot to wear their seatbelt. I firmly believe in seatbelts. I wear mine religiously. But I will also defend steadfastly anyone's right to be an idiot and not wear one without fear of citation. The government is so hard up for money, it's ridiculous. Tax fast food. That stuff's terrible for you. I smoke cigarettes, and I won't even eat that stuff. Caustic.

Good grief. Maybe the mafia will get into "smoke easies" and show the government for chumps yet again. I shan't hold my breath... which I can't do for very long anyway... ;)

7 Comments:

At 10:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

people are now suing fast food companies for making them obese *sigh*

 
At 2:05 PM, Blogger Becky P. said...

why not? They sued marlboro for making them smoke...

I'm gonna find someone to sue...

How about the mayor of Hollywood for making me watch crappy movies? I'm sure I could round-about some kind of argument for it...

 
At 7:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who sue fast food companies are idiots. But then, people in general are idiots.

 
At 1:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, I have to say the seat belt law is vastly different from the smoking law. It actually has to do with protecting the law enforcement and fire and parametics from having to be put in danger. For example: you drive too fast and don't strap in and flip your car and get wedged in there - then your gas tank starts to leak. The fire trucks arrive and have to use the jaws of life to free you, but everybody dies in a firey explosion because you decided not to wear your seat belt and the jaws of life set off sparks. That's why it's a law, not because it's 'more safe' - that's just the excuse they give for making you want to wear it.

However, with the 20% population smokes so why should we allow them to create the laws argument should work both way. Comeon, ban gay marriage because less than 20% of the pop wants to marry someone of the same sex. Ban voting because less than 20% of the population votes (i'm just guessing here)... what else can we ban? The fact is if I go out I expect to be exposed to cigarette smoke and it doesn't so much bother me... suck it up people - metaphorically speaking of course....

10lees

 
At 1:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too am tired of these wimpy people who insist they will decide what I will do to my body and when. At least I am actively participating in the lottery of possible cancers I will contract in the later years. I know what awaits me. Is that a little too morbid? Anyway, back to the post...

I understand creating a ban in places like LA where the weather is just as beautiful as the anorexic fake-boobied blonde people running around. But in Minnesota? Are they nuts? I think the smokers have made their demands clear. If you want our money (and you do) let us smoke. Now bars are finding ways to get around the ban. Changing their hours, adding outside patios (at least for the summer), and applying for 6 month exemptions while they dismantle their menus so they can boost their liquor sales. We have been heard, and the pubs and eateries of Minnesota know who their cash cows are. We are the ones with the distinguished Marlboro hanging from our lips.

Moo.

Amanda :)

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger dr gonzo said...

Here is my big beef: in Illinois (where normal people live), they upped the cig tax so it costs $4-5/pack. This is a great way to deter underage smokers, people who want to quit etc. plus, i think the tax goes to the education system. everyone wins! and MN decides to effing BAN smoking. how is this effective? the smoking rate has gone down in IL since the tax hike. the smoking rate has not been affected in MN, to my knowledge. this is the Midwest. We want our smoke, and we'll have it too! Hoorah for Costellos, O'Gara's and the rest for backing Kelly's vetos! Kelly rules, Thune (a SMOKER to this day) drools.

 
At 11:34 AM, Blogger Becky P. said...

I read an interesting editorial, though, that claimed if the money from the tax goes to education, it's almost an act of school spirit to be caught smoking at school. Thought that was pretty funny.

Her arguement was that it should go towards health care, as a matter of congruance, but frankly, money's money... take it out of one bank account or another... how does that matter?

Anyway, I still think they should tax fast food more. Or beer. All I can say is that either way, it comes out of my paycheck. I'm sick of taxes or "fees" or "involuntary contributions" or whatever they want to call them. I'm not on Gvmt health care. Tax the smokers who ARE... tax someone, but not me. lol

that is my official stance. "I don't care where you get the money, but I don't want to give it to you." Aren't I a team player?

I should probably be shot.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home