Alcohol, Tobacco, and Guns
By: Joe J. Wallace
Yesterday, one of our readers and a frequent commenter who goes by the handle of “Sadie Mae†posted the following comment in response to our article regarding the comprehensive smoking ban that takes effect today in Vanderburgh County but not in the City of Evansville.
“My only problem with the CCO is that it wants less government, but wants the government to stop smoking at business which pay taxes to the government! I don’t smoke, but it’s legal and the owner needs to decide. If you don’t want smoking, most everyplace in Evansville is smoke free. I’m just saying if you are against government in your life, then quit picking and choosing!â€
As the City County Observer freely acknowledges that we are predisposed to supporting minimization of the impact of government on our day to day lives, we do not support anarchy, we support good public policy. We particularly do not want to see society degenerate into a self serving jungle as the children in William Golding’s novel “Lord of the Flies†did. Government and laws have a place in society. That place with respect to law enforcement is to protect the individual rights of people from being trampled on by others.
Our so called “rights†were granted to us by the founders of the United States and are accepted to be defined by the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights. Contrary to popular belief, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mentions tobacco. The second amendment does guarantee the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms. We at the City County Observer support the Second Amendment.
Guns are not something that one “needs†to have to survive yet the founders of the country felt so strongly about the need of citizens to own them at their own discretion that the words “shall not be infringed†were included in the Second Amendment. Guns in the hands of responsible people can be used to feed a family, assemble a collection for pleasure, teach mechanical skills and proper maintenance procedures, and yes for protection when an irresponsible person or people infringe upon others rights. In the hands of a serial killer or a freeway shooter guns are a danger to society and are used to deprive people of their right to life randomly and indiscriminately. Guns only become a problem when they are used to oppress. As the old saying goes “guns do not kill people, people kill peopleâ€.
The same can be said of tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol have many things in common with guns. All three are legal, none of them can do any damage unless they are “loaded and firedâ€, and all three kill people when used irresponsibly. Humans have corrupted all three by abusive behavior. A freeway shooter that corrupts a gun by spraying bullets into a crowd of people is prosecuted even if no one is hit. A person who drives under the influence of alcohol endangering innocent bystanders is prosecuted even when there is no wreck. Until recently smokers have been allowed to endanger others indiscriminately without any consequence.
In recent history there have been between 8,000 and 10,000 gun related homicides per year in the United States. There are roughly 25,000 deaths per year to innocent bystanders due to people driving while intoxicated. Second hand smoke on the other hand is attributed to contributing to 53,000 deaths per year. The only variable is time. While a gun or a drunk kill or maim instantly, secondhand smoke can take years. The end result is the same, a valuable member of society gets a premature ride in a hearse.
Some dispute these statistics yet many accept them. We accept these numbers as an accurate and relative measurement of the second hand deaths caused by alcohol, tobacco, and guns. The scientific and forensic evidence of all of these statistics is compelling enough to accept.
So Sadie Mae, here is our answer to your comment. Second hand tobacco kills twice as many people per year as drunk drivers and five times as many people as are murdered with guns. We support a comprehensive smoking ban for the same reasons that we support keeping drunk drivers off of the road and the laws that prevent random shooting into crowds or murder. Alcohol, tobacco, and guns are legal and should continue to be. Your right to live without irresponsible use of these legal things endangering you is something that we also support. A comprehensive smoking ban is part of that protection.
Here is an old song about Alcohol, Tobacco, and Guns.
Thank you Joe. The belief that everyone can avoid the dangers of second hand smoke by simply not frequenting the restaurants and bars which allow smoking does not take into account the workers in those establishments or even the reporters and others who must go into these places to meet for business contacts or for job requirements like delivery of supplies. But the group of folks that the smoking ban will not help and the group that are most damaged by smoking are the children growing up with smoking adults. These children’s health is greatly compromised and additionally they learn by example that smoking is acceptable and to be admired. On top of all that, the federal government subsidizes the tobacco farmer. The ad industry sells its soul for the money it receives from tobacco companies advertising their products. That is supposed to indicate that we are a free capitalist society. Nothing is perfect, but free at what cost? Where do individual rights end and child abuse begin?
I’m with Sadie Mae.
The issue Joe, is deeper than just Constitutionality. To follow your logic, why stop there? Just ban vehicle use, wouldn’t you save many, many more lives?
Plus, it’s inconsistent. You CCO guys brag, rightfully so, that you don’t endorse candidates and are more independent. (Of course, who could be 100% clean and pure of political influence?) On this issue, you look as bought and paid for as the other media. I mean, come on, can’t you find a blond (with bold eye shadow and lipstick) to mention the obvious NEGATIVES to our ban? 😉
Plus, hearing about smoking bans is annoying. (The sheer arrogance of one making the case that they deserve the right to eat at an establishment without breathing smoke is astonishing.) One “leader” will champion a ban, then the next will champion the opposite. Nobody campaigned that hard about the ban, yet here we are pushing through another pseudo-mandate?
And that gets to the power grabs we detest. Very little is spilled out in campaigns here, the candidates largely keep quiet and run on their shining smile and/or greased hair. But all it takes for these candidates that win issues once elected, is to co-opt a media outfit to run a few positive articles and… voila.
In that regard it’s just jamming another ordinance/plan/law down our throats… If you haven’t noticed by the political atmosphere – we citizens are already regurgitating. (Obamacare, TARP, “Too big to fail”, “Change we can believe in”, “Shovel ready”, AIG, Chrysler, GM, Ethanol, Subsidized wind farms, Drilling bans, Durham, CVB Booze-fests, Weinzapfel Stadium, Weinzapfel hotel, McCurdy, Baseball diamond proposal, Tennis proposal, FDP waste, Bank on Evansville, Subsidized unsold condos, etc.)
Please, Nurse Ratched, can I have my cigarettes? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5NyyC-UjBM&feature=related)
Eville Taxpayer
One thing that you forgot to include in the your post is all the money that our city, state, and nation would save on health care and its costs by the reduction of smoking in ALL public places. This has huge ramifications including but not limited to personal and business insurance costs, medical and drug costs not covered by insurance, costs to doctors, hospitals, etc incurred by patients unable to pay their bills that are passed on to the general population, funeral costs for families, and federal tax dollars for subsidizing tobacco farming. Yes some ordinances are necessary. And “No you can’t have a cigarette. You’re in a health care facility.”
Nurse Ratchet
No, I touched on that, it’s a very slippery slope. LOTS OF THINGS IN OUR SOCIETY HAVE RISKS!
If you really, really believe that…
Are you looking for spokeswomen for a slew of new ordinances:
-Vehicles are dangerous, mandate bus travel?
-What does the acid in soda do to young kids teeth? (put an age restriction to soda sales, just like booze?)
-Do you know the statistics of stair falls? Let’s make every home mandatory one level, by government mandate?
-There is technology to aid people getting off the sofa – the lift systems. Why isn’t every chair in Evansville retrofitted with lift kits to prevent all the joint/cardiac stress and potential muscle damage?
-What about malnourishment, how much do you contribute to the food bank?
-If we are banning smoking based on health costs, how does abortion fit into that equation?
-Should tattoo’s be “legal” in a workplace so concerned about health to BAN smoking?
-What about walking in a workplace with your shoes untied? That act “has huge ramifications including but not limited to personal and business insurance costs, medical and drug costs not covered by insurance, costs to doctors, hospitals, etc incurred by patients unable to pay their bills that are passed on to the general population, funeral costs for families, and…”?
PS: Some of those “costs” you mention, are more likely just – commerce. “Costs to doctors, hospitals”, maybe REVENUES too?
And while your listing possible things in our society that have potential risks…..
How about a ordnance against baggy paints like all the kids wear that they have to use one hand at all times to hold them up! looks like there is tons of liability in every direction on that topic from falling down on a public sidewalk to public exposure.
If you want the government to control every aspect of your life keep letting them interfere where common sense should prevail, not that there is any common sense in government but they are more then willing to oblige all the willing subjects that can’t be personally responsible for their own actions or decisions.
Remember there are no casualties only volunteers.
Let the business decide which route to go, if they can make more money going smoke free, then so be it, gov’t needs to sit this one out.
Despite supporting a smoke-free community, this site has no issue taking money to advertise “Indiana’s Largest Humidor!”
We never said that tobacco should be illegal. We would accept ads for guns too. We do support common sense laws that keep one person from harming another person through reckless use of legal substances. The statistics on deaths from alcohol, tobacco, and guns all justify restricting them to protect the public. Perhaps there are other substances that need to be on the list and perhaps not. These three have a long track record of destruction to innocent bystanders. Baggy pants, untied shoes, and some of the other things that opponents have posted do not have such statistics associated with them.
And the “War on Smoking” rages on…
Did you ever see the old cartoon of Joe Camel, with the caption.
“WARNING: You may be so stupid that the government has to protect you from a giant cartoon camel.”
Typical.
As an example to others, and not that I care for moderation myself, it has always been my rule never to smoke when asleep, and never to refrain from smoking when awake.
Mark Twain
Let’s make smoking illegal. Let’s make alcohol illegal. Let’s make guns illegal. Let’s make freedom of speech illegal. Let’s make being 20 pounds overweight illegal. If anyone’s health could be put in danger, then we will make it illegal. I don’t care what you do as long as you stay out of my yard!!! Sorry CCO you lose on this one! But thanks for making me the center of a whole post!
Comments are closed.