The Worldwide Leader in Weird ~ News - Politics - Weird News - Crime - Scandals - Celebrities - Video

Nanny State: Personal Freedom Ends Where the Smoke Nazis Rule

If you're new to DBKP, you may want to subscribe to the DBKP.com RSS feed. Thanks for stopping by!

Second-hand Smoke Caution Signs on WV Bars

caution sign for the Nanny State

Latest evidence of the Smoke Nazis


“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, secure the Blessings of Liberty, and to protect us from all risks and especially from ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
–Preamble, U.S. Constitution

The Preamble to the Constitution really does not contain the words above in red. There is a segment of government and society, however, that is confused on this issue: those boosters of Big Government and the Nanny State.

Wikipedia defines The Nanny State as “a derogatory term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies, and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice.”

It’s a sign of how far down the road to Nannyism the U.S. has traveled that the Wiki definition includes the qualifier, “the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice.” Anyone who is older than 21-years-old can remember a time when their lives weren’t bound by a steady stream of laws, regulations, edicts and criminal penalties churned out by the Nanny State’s most recognizable stormtroopers: the Smoke and Health Nazis.



The Smoke Nazis, like their earlier namesakes, know that “public health dangers” is one way government can get its citizens in the habit of giving up personal freedoms. And Smoke Nazis see “Danger” everywhere that smoking takes place.

Anyone older than 30 can even remember when the words “A man’s home is his castle” actually meant something in a court of law. And anyone older than 40 can recall when those five words–sure to a rile any Nannyist–were commonplace: “Ain’t none of your business”.

The incident that sparked these reminiscences was the appearance, on the door of the neighborhood tavern, of the sign pictured at the beginning of this post. It’s a sign that has been ordered to be placed on every bar and tavern in the state of West Virginia.

It’s merely the latest salvo in the on-going war against personal habits and behavior among consenting adults. On one typical evening at this same tavern, a count of the establishment’s 22 patrons showed 18 of them participating in the cautionary act of smoking. The Smoke Nazis may not realize it, but the “CAUTION” sign had its expected effect: when warning signs proliferate and appear on the most mundane activities, there’s a inclination to ignore all of them.

Smoking is not the only front in the war for a Euro-style Nanny State in America, but it’s only the hottest one.

We won’t delve into the dishonesty of anti-smoking officials and their manipulation of statistics and studies to further their agenda: that would occupy a roomful of researchers–working around the clock–for years.

Or, the fact that looking to the Lung Association and other anti-smoking groups for reliable, non-biased statistics and information is akin to depending on the Democratic National Committee for information and news about conservative causes.

As Reason’s Jacob Sullum wrote in 2006:

According to Surgeon General Richard Carmona, secondhand smoke is so dangerous that you’d be better off if you stopped going to smoky bars and started smoking instead. “Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke,” claims the press release that accompanied his new report on the subject, “has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer.”

Among smokers, these diseases take many years to develop. So if you got your health tips from the surgeon general, you’d start smoking a pack a day as a protective measure.

But you may want to look elsewhere for medical advice. Carmona is so intent on promoting smoking bans—a key element of the government’s campaign to reduce cigarette consumption—that he absurdly exaggerates the hazards of secondhand smoke, hoping to generate enough public alarm to banish smokers from every location outside the home.

As the report itself makes clear, there is no evidence that brief, transient exposure to secondhand smoke has any effect on your chance of developing heart disease or lung cancer.

So the report admits that, as far as bar patrons go, second-hand smoke is essentially what it always has been to the non-smoker in a social setting: a nuisance.

However, if second-hand smoke was merely a nuisance, there wouldn’t be much need for the government to step in and regulate it. Citizens don’t mind staying home if there’s a quarantine. If a dire public health hazard threatens, most people don’t mind giving up a little personal freedoms for a short while to combat it.

That’s explains the never-ending, dishonest campaign against second-hand smoke. One would hope that there would be a great outcry if the government was seen as stripping people of personal freedoms in the name of a nuisance.

Hence, the “CAUTION” sign that’s been slapped on bars and taverns all over the state of West Virginia: it softens up the populace for the next Smoke Nazi bid for more control. We have a real problem: the state wouldn’t mandate “CAUTION” signs for a nuisance.

Would they?

The studies that link secondhand smoke to these illnesses involve intense, long-term exposure, typically among people who have lived with smokers for decades.

Even in these studies, it’s difficult to demonstrate an effect, precisely because the doses of toxins and carcinogens bystanders passively absorb are much smaller than the doses absorbed by smokers, probably amounting to a fraction of a cigarette a day. Not surprisingly, the epidemiological studies cited by the surgeon general’s report find that the increases in lung cancer and heart disease risks associated with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke are small, on the order of 20 to 30 percent.

It only takes two things for a focused campaign to strip people’s freedoms to succeed: a over-zealous cabal who stand to profit by the changes (the Lung Association, American Cancer Society and other anti-smoking groups depend on donations of anti-smokers); and, an apathetic, ignorant or uninformed general public.

One day soon, there may be those too young to remember when people routinely went to bars and taverns to unwind with a beer and a smoke. That would be too bad; because the day the Smoke Nazis gain total victory and outlaw smoking completely–does anyone doubt that is where they are taking us?–is the day that they turn their undivided attention to another personal habit, another personal choice, another freedom.

The real hazard is not bar patrons unwinding–some choosing to smoke, other declining the opportunity.

The real threat to public safety and welfare are the dedicated minions of the Nanny State: the Smoke Nazis who KNOW what’s better for you than you yourself do.

Some Americans live for the day when the only warning labels mandated by government would be those required for Smoke Nazis: that obnoxious, arrogant clique that spends their lives instructing everyone else on how to live theirs.

by Mondoreb



Sources:
* usconstitution.net
* Nanny State
* A Pack of Lies

Bookmark and Share:
Sphere: Related Content


Tagged as: , , , ,

DBKP - The Worldwide Leader in Weird

↑ Grab this Headline Animator for your webpage OR
Click the banner to grab DBKP's News Feed for Yourself!

Comments

  • Mark In Irvine said:

    My God - all that from one sign? Last I heard, people were still free to go into bars that permit smoking, whether or not there are signs at the front door, and people were still free to smoke or not as they choose. [You should try California - smoking is prohibited in any place of public business, but smokers still manage to enjoy their cigarettes.] I personally have no problem with people smoking if that’s what they want. I do have a problem with people blowing smoke on me or so filling the air (in some place where smoking is banned) that it gets on me, my clothes, my hair, etc. Is there anything wrong with “the population” i.e., voters, being able to set aside places where smoking is prohibited, so that those of us who don’t want to encounter it in restaurants can look forward to having a smoke-free place? Most places that are now “smoke-free” have designated places where smokers can enjoy their tobacco. Is that such a problem?

    Mark In Irvines last blog post..Which Sports Car are You?

    [Reply]

  • Jack Sanderson said:

    I am a very hardline libertarian and support Ron Paul for President…but cigarette smoke in public places is an assault on my person. Before the laws were made, I confronted many jackasses who thought they could light up in my presence without asking me first if I would mind. You have to understand just how angry other people get when they smell the pollution of a cigarette in what should be their fresh air. Now you can say that a restaurant owner should be able to decide for himself or herself. I agree only insofar as the restaurant owner has no employees who need money and are told that they must work in the smoke. I hope you don’t think that asbestos companies had the right to sell asbestos? I hope you don’t think that workers who worked with asbestos should have just known better but chose to kill themselves. Why not complain about IMBRA, which is the new Nanny State law that says that American men are rotten and, therefore, all foreign women who want to meet Americans online must read and sign the American’s criminal background check? The feminists are saying that men who want to meet foreign women are like smokers polluting the environment and in need of regulation. They have less of a leg to stand on by saying that then others do when they say that second hand smoke is disgusting and needs to stop assaulting innocent third parties.

    [Reply]

  • L. Neil Smith said:

    I quit smoking 15 years ago, but I have nothing against individuals who still smoke, and I rather enjoy being in places where they do. Most anti-smokers are inclined to scream bloody murder if they see smoke 100 yards away through three layers of glass. That’s not because smoke is all that annoying. It’s because they are bigots and neopuritans who would be screaming about something else, if tobacco had never been discovered. The fact that some say “I’m a libertarian, but … ” should tell you everything you need to know about these shriveled souls who, as H.L. Mencken told us, wake up in the middle of the night trembling in fear that somewhere, someone is happy.

    [Reply]

  • admin (Author) said:

    MARK:

    “Last I heard, people were still free to go into bars that permit smoking, whether or not there are signs at the front door, and people were still free to smoke or not as they choose.”

    If that were true everywhere, then there would be NO problem. However, in the county next to me, there is no choice: smoking is banned in bars, restaurants and all public places. In our county, public health officials (who control the particulars of the smoking ban county-wide and are unelected) are moving next to outlawing smoking in all bars next–one of the last places left where people have a choice. In almost every instance, smoking bans are begun reasonably enough: with no-smoking sections provided in restaurants and other referenced public places. Then, once the ban is established, the number of establishments where smoking is allowed is reduced on a regular basis–usually yearly–until a county is smoke-free. If one disagrees, there is no recourse electorally.

    JACK:

    I am a very hardline libertarian and support Ron Paul for President…but cigarette smoke in public places is an assault on my person.

    The absurdity of your statements should be evident.

    Any libertarian–hardline or not–would have omitted the rest of the comment after “but…cigarette smoke…” You spend the first six words claiming to be a libertarian and the rest of the comment providing the proof that you are no such thing. Nice try, though.

    L. NEIL:

    Exactly. Bravo!

    That being said, thanks to all three of you for taking the time to stop by and comment.

    [Reply]

  • Marian Sanchez said:

    This issue goes way beyond the “quality of your air space”! Yes, it is about slowly conditioning the masses to less and less freedoms. Yet there is more to it than that even. Smoking balances out our metabolism, raises our immune defenses, excites neurotransmitters, and the most effective way of diffusing it into the brain tissues is by SMOKING.

    It has been well known since the 40’s that nicotine can lesson the effects of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. There is plenty of research to show this to be true. NICOTINE BENEFITS

    Unlike pharmaceuticals, when nicotine enters a receptor site, it can go onto other receptor sites in the brain and body to do more. It increases acetylcholine (boosting memory) and mimics thyrotropin, to increase thyroid functioning.

    Here’s the true SMOKING GUN TO WHY IT IS BEING DEMONIZED –> Nicotine protects and repairs our brains against continual radio frequency bombardment of cell phones and cell phone towers. From the Bioelectromagnetic Research Laboratory at the Univ. of Wash in Seattle, experiments were carried out exposing rats to RF. After 20 min, acetylcholine decreased and after repeated exposure the receptor sites decreased especially in the frontal cortex (cognitive abilities and long term memory). In the cells of the rats exposed to RF, there were BREAKS IN THE STRANDS OF DNA in the nerve cells which have a lower capability for repair and the damage becomes cumulative.

    There even MORE GOOD REASONS TO SMOKE: it helps the sheath of the nerve synapses to repair. From the Journal of Neuropsychiatry

    Direct nicotinic stimulation associated with smoking has been shown to increase nicotinic receptors in the late myelinating frontal and temporal intracortical regions. Unlike most agonists, nicotine causes an up-regulation of its receptors and has been shown to accelerate brain function recovery when white matter is damaged.

    Many years ago, I read some fascinating research by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and must give her credit for connecting the dots on this issue.

    [Reply]