|
|
| Home Page |
Proposed Smoking Ban Councilman Nutter has put forward a bill which would ban smoking in bars, restaurants and all workplaces in the City: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10811707.htm The Libertarian Party of Philadelphia is opposed to the bill. To see a recent press release click here: Press Release Here in brief are the arguments against: 1. It's up to the owner of the private property to decide how to conduct business. Our economic system depends on entrepreneurs having confidence that their private property rights will not be undermined. 2. If there is a market for smoke-free bars, entrepreneurs will open them. Since its costs a minimum of $150,000 to buy a license to sell alcohol and the number of licenses is fixed, the City already does two things to prevent smoke-free bars from starting up. The Libertarians would abolish the requirement to obtain a license to make it easier to open a smoke-free bar. 3. The main study which alleges that secondhand smoke is harmful was held by a court to be so flawed as to be worthless. (The 1992 EPA study alleged that secondhand smoke kills 3000 people a year, Federal Judge Osteen in 1998 concluded that the methodology of this study was unreliable. To read the initial judgment in full click here: http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm. To read how the Court of Appeal acknowledged the flaws of the EPA report click here: http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/Extra/hotdocs/flu-cured_CCA4_reversal.htm. To read an analysis of the study click here: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html ) 4. Studies have shown that in most cases, most bars show a decrease in profitability after these laws go into effect. We have a list of 150 New York bars which suffered a drop in business or closed because of the smoking ban. Some bars are forced out of business entirely. Georges Perrier has stated that he will have to relocate Le Bec Fin out of the city if this bill is passed because many of his customers are smokers & he will otherwise lose customers. 5. Employees who work in a smoky environment & who dislike it are free to find another job. No-one who believes secondhand smoke is harmful is forced to work in a smoky environment. 6. The fine for non-compliance will be $300. This is another excuse, along with red light cameras, to obtain money from the over-taxed Philadelphian. The City of Philadelphia already has a 3.5 billion dollar budget, most of which is spent on the salaries and benefits of its 28,000 employees. Isn't a wage tax of 4.3% enough? You can expect that enforcement will be arbitrary, with friends of the administration left alone, and opponents zealously prosecuted. 7. The number one health problem in America is not smoking, it's obesity. Cardiovascular disease which is usually caused by obesity, is for example the number one killer of men, and kills more men than the next 9 causes of death combined. If it's ok to ban smoking because it kills and secondhand smoke is unpleasant, surely it's ok to prevent people from ordering fatty meals and large portions and to require them to exercise? 8. Restaurants offering more than 75 seats already provide smoke-free areas. 9. Many bar workers smoke. Bar owners who have non-smoking employees usually ask the employee if they would prefer to work in the non-smoking area, to retain good workers. 10. Smoking has traditionally occurred in bars. 11. The real goal of the anti-smoking pressure groups is to ban smoking everywhere because they disapprove of smoking. All of us do something which someone else dislikes. Is this the right basis for governing? 12. Instead of spending their time on this, wouldn't you prefer the Councilmen to investigate corruption and waste in City Hall. Is it right that almost $2 billion of no bid contracts are awarded ever year? Would it be right to sell City owned seats at the Vet to raise funds for party purposes? http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10953630.htm Article arguing against the bill: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/columnists/stu_bykofsky/10920289.htm Statement given by Philadelphia resident Michael McFadden to City Council against the bill: http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html
Smoking & the Nazis The members of the National Socialist Workers Party were vehemently opposed to smoking, labeling it a crime against the state. Government-controlled health magazines -- such as Gesundes-Volk (Healthy people: Journal for the Health and Entertainment of the Workforce) and Volksgesundheit (People's Health) -- were filled with anti-smoking articles. There was also Journal Die Volksgifte (The Popular Poison), wholly devoted to the government's campaign against alcohol and tobacco. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls also disseminated anti-smoking propaganda, condemning smoking as "race poison" and a "liberal perversion." Furthermore, the Nazi government decreed that tobacco advertising could not give the impression that smoking had any "hygienic values," "represent the use of tobacco as a sign of manliness," or "ridicule opponents of tobacco." The Germans were the first to document the relationship between smoking and lung cancer in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1939, the Reich Health Fuhrer established the "Bureau Against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco." Chancellor Adolf Hitler himself was fanatically opposed to smoking, and often spoke of Plicht zur Gezundheit ("the obligation to be healthy"). Since the health of the individual was required by the government as part of the national interest, Hitler declared the wishes of the individual in question were of no importance. As one publication put it: "Brother national socialist, do you know that our Fuhrer is against smoking, and thinks that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?" |