ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

More government, less freedom

     Yahoo! News reports:

California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.

     Yes, I know-- this new restriction on people's conduct seems so, well, reasonable.  Unless you're a smoker--but then, who cares about them?

     The nefariousness of this law lies precisely in its seeming reasonableness.  Who is better to set the rules -- the State or the kids' own parents?  Apparently not the parents,at least if they are part of a despised group like smokers.

     So down the slippery slope we go-- if the State knows better than certain parents how to raise their children, we may slowly get to the point where the State's superior knowledge will be able to say to certain despised groups of parents that (to protect the kids, of course)the parents shouldn't be allowed to allow their children to watch certain TV programs or listen to certain radio shows-- or even be allowed to have children.  Inch by inch, freedom gets taken away, until Big Brother is in your home.  Overtime, the cure proves worse than the disease.

SURGEON-GENERAL'S REPORT RAISES INTERESTING ISSUES

     As most of you know, this past Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General issued his sweeping condemnation of second-hand smoke:

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

The report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, finds that even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause immediate harm. The report says the only way to protect nonsmokers from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking indoors.

     Fair enough.  However, the Surgeon General's comments provide no macroscopic health-risk perspective for policymakers to utilize.  Is, for example, second-hand smoke statistically more dangerous than drinking alcohol?  Than driving?  Than skydiving?   

     If these items carry as much or more danger than why not ban them, too?  Oh, wait- we tried that by something called Prohibition.  Now that was a real success.

     The fact is that everything in life carries risk (there is a saying, "Life is hazardous to your health").  Second-hand smoke entails risk but, as noted, so does being a passenger in a car. The Surgeon-General's report, when judged in a relative-risk perspective, really does not provide much guidance as to which risks should be the subject of limited public regulatory resources.

SURVEY CLAIMS PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SMOKING BANS

     The United Pro-Choice Smoking Rights Newsletter reports a survey by a Mississippi State University researcher Robert McMillen, M.D. indicating anti-smoking attitudes have increased in the USA from 2005-2006.  A key excerpt:

“A growing majority of adults in the U.S. favor restrictions on smoking in public settings, suggesting that many communities across the nation have the public support for much broader public smoking restriction policies,” he concluded.

McMillen and his research team conducted six annual cross-sectional household telephone surveys in the summers of 2000-2005, while numerous state and national tobacco control programs were being implemented. The surveys included national probability samples of adults from all 50 states, and had a response rate of 75-87 percent.

Support for smoking bans increased from:
--71 to 80 percent in shopping malls;
--61 to 71 percent in restaurants;
--77 to 82 percent in fast-food restaurants;
--25 to 39 percent in outdoor parks; and
--78 to 82 percent in indoor sporting events.

Regarding household practices, support increased from 69 to 77 percent for smoke-free homes; and from 79 to 90 percent for smoking bans when children are present.

     So, if you smoke in your own home, beware:  you're next, especially if you have kids.  Just one thing--I wonder how the government will enforce an in-home smoking ban?  Will the police be going to Court to get a warrant to break into your house to arrest you if there is probable cause to believe you are smoking in your den?

     Will your neighbors have a "hotline" to phone in anonymous tips if the neighbors peer into your windows and see you smoking? 

     What if you're smoking both cigarettes (increasingly impermissible) and marijuana (increasingly permissible) and you're cited or arrested because someone sees you smoking marijuana in your own home and merely mistook the weed for a cigarette? 

     Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  This will be one of those times if we move toward a police state in which anti-smoking stormtroopers can issue citations or make arrests for smoking even inside your own home. 

     Where is the ACLU when you really need it?

ARKANSAS-WHO SAYS A RED STATE CANNOT BE "PROGRESSIVE"?

     Previous Posts on this Blog have identified how the State of California (Post of 1/27/06) , Illinois and Maryland (Post of 2/10/06), Oklahoma (Post of 3/10/06), the City of Calabasas, California (Post of 3/18/06) and the District of Columbia (Post of 4/2/06) have jumped aboard the anti-smoking legislative bandwagon.

     Interestingly, while some of the jurisdictions noted above (D.C., California, Illinois, Maryland) are "Blue States" which could be expected to jump on this bandwagon, the "Red State" of Oklahoma has hopped aboard as well.  Now comes word that another Red State, Arkansas, is on board, too. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported earlier this month that the Legislature had sent to the Governor a bill that

...bans smoking in all motor vehicles carrying children who are restrained in those seats. The bill carries a $ 25 fine, which can be waived if drivers prove they have entered a smoking cessation program.

Violating the bill would be a “primary offense,” [State Rep. Bob]Mathis [D-Hot Springs and the author of the bill] said, meaning police could use violations of the bill to justify pulling someone over.

“And I’m tickled to death about it,” Mathis said.

He said he wasn’t particularly sure how police would determine the age or weight of children while trying to enforce the law.

“I don’t know that the police are going to be out there with a scale weighing anybody,” Mathis said.

A spokesman for the Little Rock Police Department said he wasn’t too sure on how the law would be enforced in the field, either.

“That’s a good question,” said Little Rock Police Sgt. Terry Hastings.

“The law enforcement of it is something that would have to be worked out. If a parents says, ‘No, they’re 7,’ that could be a problem.”

     The Governor has signed the bill into law, per the The [Arkansas] Herald Leader.  As I've asked before in Posts on this subject, is this really how citizens want law enforcement expending its limited resources?  Apparently, in Arkansas, yes.

ADD D.C. TO THE ANTI-SMOKING LIST

From Sunday's Washington Post:

Washington's new smoke-free workplaces law takes effect Monday. The law prohibits smoking in indoor public places such as restaurant dining areas, offices and apartment lobbies.

Regulations get tougher on Jan. 1, 2007, when the ban will extend to bar areas of restaurants, taverns and nightclubs.

The only exceptions are outdoor areas, hotel guest rooms, tobacco stores and cigar bars.

Business owners have objected to the ban, arguing it will drive customers to Northern Virginia, where smoking is still allowed.

CALABASAS IMPLEMENTS ANTI-SMOKING AGENDA; SMOKERS REACT

     Today's Los Angeles Times, in a front-page story Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors ("Calabasas makes it illegal to light up in public spaces, with fines up to $500. Some residents breathe easier, but others just fume"), highlights the City's apparently first-in-the-nation almost-total ban on outdoor smoking.  It appears the nearby Sagebrush Cantina, on the edge of Calabasas' shopping district but technically located in the City of Los Angeles (where outdoor smoking is still legal), may be the chief economic beneficiary of the Ordinance as patrons who smoke cross the City boundary to eat and light up.

     Meantime, the The United Pro-Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter is, figuratively and literally, "smoking mad" regarding the Ordinance and is calling for a boycott against shopping in Calabasas:

Boycott Calabasas now! Don't shop in the city of Calabasas.
Drive a little further down the road shop in Augora, Hidden Hills, or
Woodland Hills. If these politicians think they can be an isolated city
where your freedoms mean nothing showing them that you will not stand for this type of injustice. In the coming days we will also be organizing peaceful protest but this boycott will be the loudest and most meaningful way to show your disgust to a community who has no interest in protecting the rights of its people.

     Stay tuned.

OKLAHOMA-WHERE THE (SMOKE-FREE) WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN

     In addition to New Hampshire, Colorado and California (see 'SECOND-HAND SMOKE" under 'CATEGORIES" on the right-hand side of this page), Oklahoma has swung decisively into the anti-smoking orbit.

From the website about.com, Adam Knapp in his column "Your Guide to Oklahoma City" reports that "As of today, Oklahoma restaurants must either be completely smoke-free or offer a separate, ventilated room for smokers." 

NEW HAMPSHIRE MOVES TOWARD PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION SMOKING BAN

FYI, from the Website of "The United Pro-Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter":

New Hampshire is one step closer to a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars.

The House Commerce Committee voted Wednesday to recommend the full House approve a ban.

Current state law allows smoking in restaurants with fewer than 50 seats.

Larger restaurants must have ventilation systems and a segregated non-smoking area. But supporters of the ban say that does not protect workers.

COLORADO JUMPS ABOARD ANTI-SMOKING BANDWAGON

     From the Associated press, as reported on the website of Colorado Springss/Pueblo TV Station KKTV:

Statewide Smoking Ban Gets Tentative Approval

A proposal for a statewide smoking ban is moving ahead in the Legislature and could be sent to the Senate by next week.

The House tentatively approved a statewide smoking ban with three exceptions: casinos, cigar bars and the smoking lounge at Denver International Airport.

It faces a third reading before it goes before the Senate.

SECOND-HAND SMOKE LEGISLATIVE MOVEMENT-PRUDENCE OR SIMPLY HYSTERIA?

     Fear of second-hand smoke is becoming the environmentalists' cause du Jour.  In addition to the California Air Resources Board declaring such smoke to be a toxin (see Post of January 27, 2006) and the City of Calabasas, California banning smoking in most outdoor and some indoor places,  Mayland and Illinois legislators have gotten into the fray.

     WYPR radio in Maryland reports:  "...two State House Democrats [have] announced that they're renewing the campaign to ban smoking in Maryland's restaurants and bars. Senator Ida Ruben and Delegate Barbara Frush want a legislative solution to protect hospitality workers from second-hand smoke."

     And CBS News in Chicago reports:  "Illinois lawmakers are considering a statewide ban on smoking in public places, like restaurants, bars and bowling alleys.  Health advocates say smokers shouldn't inflict their smoke on employees and other customers. One expert says a waitress who breathes second-hand smoke for eight hours has essentially smoked a pack of cigarettes.But business groups oppose a ban. They say customers can vote with their feet and choose whether to go to places that allow smoking."