Monday, June 20, 2005

More smoking ban bitchery

So the other day, the DCeiver bemoaned the fact that both sides of the smoking ban debate are, well, repellent dicks. It's the way it goes when you come to believe your own grift--right now, the clouds of smoke are actually the remnants of what these two groups have thus far failed to blow up their own asses.

In the hopes that perhaps the two sides could manage this debate for the hopefully brief amount of time left for us to have to listen to it, whereupon the DC Council will institute a smoking ban only to have it overturned seventy-two hours later by the Federal Government in what should be an awesome showdown of territorial pissing over what governmental body holds the trump card in the District's long term battle of social engineering, the DCeiver has revised the two sides main point into a statement that is, if not soundbyte ready, at least intellectually honest and drained of the hyperbolic sensationalism that have gripped the debate.

Was: "Smoking is healthier than fascism."
Now: "First they came for the smokers, and sent them outside...and then they came for the burned out lightbulbs, to be replaced by new ones...and then they came for the trash, and disposed of it...and then they came--uhhh...and since I was not a lightbulb...hmmmm...well, I forget how much more of it there is, but I'm pretty sure that at the end, there are totally some death camps. So, ummm, look out for those."

Was: "All workers deserve a safe, healthy, smokefree work environment."
Now: "Or, more accurately, a statistically insignificant portion of America's workforce deserves a statistically unmeasureable uptick in workplace safety. Just so you know, though, waitress, we don't give a fuck if your ankles are killing you. When we ordered that latte, we wanted it RIGHT AWAY, so quit your bitching and limp as fast as you can."


Anonymous said...

Julian Sanchez of Reason magazine appeared on the radio show "The End of Politics" and discussed his thoughts about the smoking ban.

You can listen to the interview by going to Sanchez's blog:

It's nothing new exactly, but it's pretty entertaining.

Anonymous said...

milowent said...

hey commenters, what about the jokes!!? LOL.

Gash said...

The smoking ban didn't kill NYC's nightlife. It's better than ever. But then, DC is no New York City, that's for damn sure.

Anonymous said...

The prohibitionists are currently in fashion and running amuck, trampling the rights of people using a legal product. When alcohol was their demon in the U.S., the public endured 13 dark years of oppression- Haven?t we learned anything? We know that second hand smoke posses no known dangers*. We know that pharmaceutical companies are the money/power behind the bans spending billions promoting and funding often appearing like ?grass roots? efforts. We know there are ventilation systems available to completely eliminate smoke. When in the children?s arcade at Circus Circus, I was surprised to see ashtrays and smokers all around and you couldn?t smell a thing. Of course facts are irrelevant since this has become a moral issue? like so many others today. When this current craze is finally over, I would like to see these politicians held accountable for their bully tactics.
*In 1996, the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, reported no increase in coronary heart disease associated with secondhand smoke ?at work or in other settings.? Two years later, the World Health Organization reported ?no association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] and lung cancer.? A 1999 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded, ?We still do not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether [ETS] increases the risk of coronary heart disease.?
Then there?s the granddaddy of all secondhand smoke studies: the landmark 1993 report by the Environmental Protection Agency declaring that ETS is a dangerous carcinogen that causes 3,000 deaths annually. Five years later, a federal judge lambasted EPA for ?cherry picking? the data, excluding studies that ?demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer,? and withholding ?significant portions of its findings and reasoning in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis.?
More recently, in the May 2003 British Medical Journal, researchers found that passive smoke had no significant connection with heart disease or lung cancer death at any level of exposure at any time. Those results, stated the American Council on Science and Health, are ?consistent? with studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
P.S. The promised "hordes of non smokers" in California never showed up. My old haunts are dead and dull or out of business.