I just wanted to post this letter to the editor of the Santa Maria Times ... I think it says it all:

"I am not an advocate of smoking. I quit over 30 years ago, and regularly advise others to do the same.

My argument is that there is already too much government in our everyday lives.

You must agree that people you are proposing to regulate are taxpaying citizens, with every right to enjoy the parks as anyone else. The second-hand-smoke theory is very loosely based on junk science, as so many things are these days.

Common sense tells us that for a smoker to affect another person in a open space, such as the parks, he/she would have to be directly in that person's face. It is far more likely that dust and/or any number of other contaminants will be inhaled.

If city fathers wish to be so Draconian, they should set aside areas for smokers, as smoking, per se, is not an illegal activity.

K. Weber
Santa Maria"


null

First of all let me just say I hope everyone had a great July 4th weekend here in the U.S. I for one celebrated in the true spirit of American Freedom and Liberty; getting as drunk as I wanted and smoking just as much as I pleased. Figured I'd celebrate our country's heritage of freedom by enjoying it while it lasts. Remember when those little "bang bang" fireworks where legal? Remember when you could just run up to the store without a seat belt, or ride your bike without a helmet? That was all before the Anti smoking Health Nazis took over, the good old days in America.

But I digress - I wanted to write about this latest headline in the Observer from England. And what better way to recognize our Independence than by giving a nod of sympathy to the Queen's Land? Over the past year, with the smoking ban in effect in England, "Pubs have sold 175 million fewer pints in the past year as a direct result of the smoking ban, according to market analysts AC Nielsen."

Damn. That's a lot of beer. That's got to hurt the pub economy over there. And you think that won't happen to bars in the U.S.? They went on to report "winter months were particularly bad. Sales fell nine per cent through November to January when smokers would have been reluctant to stand outside in the cold to have a cigarette." Hell, it gets even colder here in some states ... you think American smokers are going to stand outside in the cold to enjoy a cigarette, when all the other sheep, er, I mean voters ... wait, I mean patrons ... are inside all warm and cozy, tobacco-free?

What I don't understand is why Americans are accepting these smoking bans with such complacency. British smokers are practically rioting in the streets to topple the ban compared to the way American smokers are just sitting down for it. There is no struggle, no fight left in the American citizen to stop big government from legislating their lives. No smoking? Alright, take it away. No trans fats? It's OK, I wasn't going to eat that anyway. The Jews? No, I don't know any, you can round them all up. Even people who don't smoke should realize the need to stop anti-smoking legislation. Because if you don't stop the smoking ban, they're just going to ban something else you like pretty soon.

I think the problem is smoking has been demonized so much in our society, that people actually think they can get cancer if they stand inside of the same room as a smoker for a few hours. I grew up with a smoker, as did my entire family, and no one had so much as a wheeze or a cough. And to this day no one in my family that smoked has been ill; let alone anyone who inhaled the deadly "second hand smoke."

So I implore America to think about Liberty and Justice this weekend, and consider the fate of England's pubs. It's just one more tragic casualty as a result of the lies and fallacy of the anti-smoking movement.

I just read this article from the Tri-State Observer, some dishrag yellow paper published in Pennsylvannia. What happened to objectivism in journalism? I think this writer is a little too excited about the fact that 30% of the population of his state just had their constitutional rights spat upon. First of all, there's the title of the page, "It's a Fact! Pennsylvania's New Clean Indoor Air Act" Is an exclamation point necessary here? Really? This person is way too excited before the story even starts.

The first sentence of the article is what I find the most highly objectionable though: "... making Pennsylvania the 33rd state to lawfully protect the public and hospitality workers from secondhand smoke exposure." I would have written this a little differently. How about " ... making Pennsylvania the 33rd state to hide behind a flawed state-level legislative system to illegally rescind the rights of 1/3 of all its citizens to enjoy a legal hobby". See how my I write it with one slant, and the journalist writes it with another? That's called bias, and subjectivism, and just like this writer, it has no place in modern ethical journalism!

I don't want to start a tirade about the appalling lack of journalistic integrity in our media, but come on, this is just piss poor writing. And what about the "quote" they got later on - "The Pike County Tobacco-Free Coalition asked several local restaurateurs how they feel about the smoke-free legislation. The response was unanimously welcoming." Really? What did you do, ask two people who work in the restaurant next door who don't smoke? You're telling me every restaurateur in your area loves it when the state passes a law telling them how to run their business? And did you really use an effective sampling technique when you took that poll? Lazy, sloppy, and disgusting journalism.

I would love to see this paper write about life before the civil rights movement, back when the gov't took rights away from black people, before they targeted smokers. "It's a fact! Negroes ain't welcome here anymore! Pennsylvania is the 33rd state to protect white people from the dangers of bad, nasty, scary black people." That is pretty much the same article they just wrote about us smokers. And you thought it couldn't happen in America?

Article repeated from the Source in case they pull it:

PIKE COUNTY, PA - Governor Ed. Rendell has signed a statewide smoking ban, making Pennsylvania the 33rd state to lawfully protect the public and hospitality workers from secondhand smoke exposure. The smoking ban covers restaurants, office buildings, theaters, arenas, sports facilities, mass transportation, and more.

The Clean Indoor Air Act allows for some conditional exemptions including bars when annual sales of food is equal to or less than 20% of combined gross sales, and a percentage of casino gaming floors.

Governor Rendell advocated such a ban as a way to cut health care costs. In June 2006, the Surgeon General released a report o­n the health consequences of exposure to second-hand smoke, stating that involuntary exposure is a serious public health hazard that can be prevented by making public places completely smoke-free. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes several forms of cancer. Tests have also shown this form of smoke to be particularly dangerous to children.

The Pike County Tobacco-Free Coalition asked several local restaurateurs how they feel about the smoke-free legislation. The response was unanimously welcoming.

The smoking ban will take effect 90 days from the June 13, 2008 signing, with fines for violators ranging from $250 to $1000