monzyummylunch

His Honor Blows Smoke!

Today Monz is wrapping a Smart Menu Orange Sesame Chick'n. Other notable appearances include a fresh from Florida grapefruit and the veggie that gives the thighs hives.

Recently the political editors' hometown has taken up a no smoking ordinance, reportedly the strictest in its state. It bans smoking in bars, resturants, outside buildings, pretty much anywhere. Now if there's one thing that gets under his skin (beyond genocide and our lack of energy policy), it's the nanny state. So he wrote the village trustees and mayor. One trustee gave a fairly direct and respectful response. The mayor, on the other hand... Because Monz enjoys a good joust, we reprint the exchange here:

>>PE: Hello, I'm writing to argue against the proposed anti-smoking ordinance and to inquire on where you all stand on the issue. Let me preface this by saying I am not a smoker and I don't particularly enjoy being around cigarette smoke. But I think this ordinance goes beyond what is needed to protect the public health, or even to address a public annoyance. Believe me, I'm no libertarian, but I believe the government should not limit individual freedoms without a compelling reason to do so.

The big problem is that the ordiance overreaches on the public health danger: it conflates those proven dangers of certain secondhand smoke situations with any and all exposure to secondhand smoke, regardless of what levels of carcinogens or what time period of exposure. For example, many bars use modern air cleaning technologies which drastically reduce smoke particles. Is there evidence that this isn't a satisfactory alternative? Does the ocassional passing by a smoker or two in the open air pose a statistical health threat? More than the exhaust we inhale if we walk down [xxxxxx] or [xxxxxx] roads? We all face a far greater danger from drunk drivers, but we wouldn't even consider banning alchohol sales. It seems the smoking vice is being picked on beyond the danger to others that it presents.

As to indoor smoking, even if we assume air cleaners are not effective, is it right to "protect" the health of adults who choose to assume the risk? I don't see the justification for customers of resturaunts and bars. Protecting workers is a better argument, but the job market today is very different than decades ago (when people seemed to smoke everywhere). It's difficult to argue that most of the workers we're concerned with wouldn't have similar smoke-free oportunities elsewhere. I'd understand a minimum age requirement for working at a place that allows smoking and a rule saying once a place becomes smoke-free it stays smoke-free (to proect more established nonsmoking workers). A final thought: the average expectancy of professional football players is less than 60 years. If I tried to force XXXXXXX High School to pass out flyers at XXXXX Field to discourage (let alone ban) football players I'd be run out of town! (And for the record, no, I'm not advocating that -- I'm old enough to remember when XX was the top tier :-) )<<

His Honor replied:

>>Dear PE and XXXXX : I have taken the liberty of addressing both of you within the same correspondence in connection with the above captioned matter. Although you may not know each other, both of you wrote to our board with somewhat similar objections to the proposed smoking ordinance. Thank you both for writing. I speak for the entire board when I say we appreciate your input and passion for the issues we must consider. Personally, I do not find the arguments raised by either of you compelling. Certainly not enough to modify my position on the ordinance. That fact that I do not agree with the conclusions reached by either of you does not mean that I have failed to understand your position nor do I suggest the arguments you raise are without merit. Frankly, it is my strong belief that in the not too distant future we will all look back on this debate with bewilderment ; no differently than I explain to my children that there once was a time people could smoke on airplanes. I understand quite clearly the balance our board must make on so very many decisions before us. We often struggle with the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the good of the community. One needs to look no further than the passage of our recent tree ordinance or the bulk restrictions placed on residential home development. The arguments each of you levied against the smoking ordinance could be applied equally to those actions. In my opinion those issues may have required more debate because, among other reasons , neither concerned the health of our residents. The ordinance before us however , does. Perhaps because I find no redeeming value in smoking and the very action we are interested in curtailing causes harm to others without consent , I find the balance lopsided in favor of regulation. Finally, I am as proud of XXXXXX as each of you are. I believe we will be the envy of the north shore, if not the state , when this ordinance passes and becomes the standard by which all other communities fashion their regulations against smoking. Please feel free to join us on XXXXXXXXX for the discussion. <<

ooooh, PE got angry, PE got mad:

>>Dear Mayor XXXX:

I hope the others don't mind that I have cluttered their e-mail boxes with this reply. [The Mayor had CC'd his response to the other trustees - PE] I don't mean to continue this ad nauseum, but there's several things in your response that I need to address.

You write that you respected the issues that were raised, then effectively say the opposite (that in the near future our arguments will be met with "bewilderment" of the type that will amaze children with their absurdity). You write that you understood the substance of what we wrote, but I don't see that reflected in your response. My e-mail didn't challenge the legitimacy of "curtailing causes to harm to others without consent" -- indeed, I explicitly acknowledged it. My e-mail challenged that presumption with respect to the broad scope of this proposal: there is consent for indoor bar/resturant secondhand smoke and that I don't know of scientific studies showing "harm to others" from incidental outdoor exposure. (I also raised the possibility of air cleaners and was pleased that Ms. XXXXX wrote to directly address that). Incidentally, I supported the "tear down" ordinance because that -does- have an impact on others, both aesthetically and economically.

Finally, let me add this: if harm to nonconsenting residents is the motivation here, why is secondhand smoke being addressed before and/or independent of driving while using a cell phone? Legions of studies show the latter is as dangerous as drunk driving, residents are far more likely to encounter it than secondhand smoke, the health dangers from "exposure" are greater, and there is no question of consent. A victim of such an accident would be belwildered by the councils actions on one and inaction on the other. I think the explanation is that smokers numbers have dwindled and smoking is considered so distasteful by most that they make an easier target -- that's precisely why I took the time, as a nonsmoker, to write. <<

ooooh, his honor got angry, his honor got mad:

>> I will conclude our email interaction on this issue with this response. I am more than pleased to continue this dialog in person at our xxxxxx meetings. Unfortunately , I did not receive a copy of Trustee XXXXX's response to you and therefore cannot comment. She has publicly expressed an opinion as to one aspect of the proposed ordinance . It concerned the proposed restrictions near entrances of private business locations. I do not agree with her suggestion to reduce the restriction. With respect to empirical data reflecting the danger of second hand smoke , I am completely comfortable with the testimony provided by the medical professionals who appeared before our board. Moreover, I am not persuaded by any distinction between this danger forced on our residents whether it is within an enclosed space or in a playground. Neither can be good. Finally, perhaps the board will take your suggestion ( and follow the lead of Chicago ) to study the ill effects of driving while talking on a cell phone. That fact that you have identified another area of potential regulation does not minimize the critical importance of addressing second hand smoke. Admittedly , there are a number of health issues which our board can tackle. Please do not criticize us because we have the courage to act upon at least one of them. Rather, encourage our efforts because we have the best interests of our residents in mind , despite the fact that it may not be popular with a few of our neighbors. <<