When a “private failing becomes a public menace”.
Obesity is very today, very right now. Obesity is the new smoking. “What smoking was to my parents’ generation,” [NY Gov. David] Paterson says, “obesity is to my children’s generation.” He means this in two ways. One is that kids today–these kids today!–eat fatty foods with as much ardor as their grandparents smoked tobacco. The other is that government intends to eradicate the first vice with the same ruthlessness as it did the second. And it’s not an idle threat. The campaign against smoking was progressivism’s greatest recent success. Over a span of 20 years, an ancient human weakness once enjoyed by nearly half the population and quietly tolerated by the other half became virtually outlawed.The anti-smoking campaign shows how to turn a private vice requiring tolerance and indulgence into a public offense demanding regulation and official censure. Paterson is following the campaign step by step. First comes the misappropriation of the language of epidemiology. The terms are liberated from their scientific meaning and then attached to a widely shared activity or condition. The condition, in this case obesity, is renamed a “disease,” suggesting that some kind of contagion is making the rounds. Then the disease inflates into an “epidemic,” suggesting an urgency that only the foolhardy would ignore. “We find ourselves,” says Paterson, “in the midst of a new public health epidemic, childhood obesity.” Any libertarian qualms are quickly overridden, since not even the most hollow-eyed anarcho-capitalist would deny that government is obliged to guard against runaway disease.
When everyone is a victim, then no one is responsible for their own behavior.
Or, when everyone is a child, then they, too, are not responsible for their behavior.
Whether coming from the Left or Right, “Progressives” are all about knowing just what is the best way to turn people into children for their own good. It is all about a large, overwhelming, Nanny Government that micromanages one’s own decisions just about any personal activity. It’s not about engaging people as adults and merely giving them solid and sourced information from which adults can then choose to act (or not act) upon, or even engaging in advocacy that adults can either accept or reject; it is about taking those decisions away — be it a fat tax, snack tax, or gas tax. Even choosing to be curmudgeony and sitting at home won’t be tolerated as Michelle O! said last February
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed – you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.â€Â
Certainly, it is well and good to encourage our fellow citizens to be informed and engaged, but is it a requirement that, unmet, will result in Government sanction? Doesn’t the First Amendment guarantee of the right of association also mean the right of non-association?
As Mark Steyn observes
If you’re in a society that values individual liberty, you’ll at least get a shot at tearing your own life apart  you’ll make bad choices, marry a ne’er-do-well, blow your savings, lose your job  but these are ultimately within your power to correct. [...] To live is messy but liberating: Free societies enable the citizenry to fulfill their potential  to innovate, to create, to accumulate  while recognizing that some of their number will fail. But to attempt to insulate free peoples from moral hazard is debilitating and ultimately fatal.
In Mary Poppins, little Jane exclaims “Whatever would we do without you?” and Mary replies, “I shall stay until the wind changes.” For Progressives, however, the wind never changes and they’ll do whatever it takes to keep it that way.
Comment by ccoffer on 12/28 @ 4:01 pm #
I wonder if any of these demonrat visionaries would term adultery a “disease”? Illegitimacy? Lethargy? What about pathological envy?
Comment by Carin -buried under 10 inches of "climate change" on 12/28 @ 4:01 pm #
? No: Not food merely, for food and commercial marketing combine to create the TFE–the “Toxic Food Environment.” The TFE is everywhere in today’s America; it is today’s America. It emanates from the seductive advertising of food, from the media’s quasi-pornographic obsession with food, from the scandalously low price of food, from the ubiquitous sale of food in such unlikely places as gas-station minimarts.
*******
“Weight bias exists,” they explained, because weightist bigots believe that “the only reason people fail to lose weight is because of [they're not teaching grammar at Yale these days] poor self-discipline or a lack of willpower.” This wrongheaded notion “blames the victim rather than addressing environmental conditions that cause obesity.”
The city council takes care of the first part of this incorrect thinking. Its new law reinforces the view that obesity, like sex or race, is an unchangeable condition deserving civil rights protection.
Heh. Honestly, this could have been a SNL parody 25 years ago.
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/28 @ 4:12 pm #
Um, reduce food intake and MOVE for once, and wight will decrease.
I can’t tell you how sick I am of seeing people in those electric grocery carts that are just fat, instead of actually disabled. If you’d walk the aisles, maybe you’d get some exercise for once! Same in theme parks.
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/28 @ 4:14 pm #
However, one could make a very good argument for school lunches and health classes. Having a health class now that teaches the food pyramid, then serving tater tots with fried chicken in the cafeteria is a “mixed message” situation.
Comment by McGehee on 12/28 @ 4:21 pm #
Anyone that tries to deny me my right to be overweight will be eaten!
Comment by Carin on 12/28 @ 4:28 pm #
John – I get sick of that too. But, people are responsible for their own damn selves. Kids don’t get fat ’cause they eat tater tots for lunch. They get fat ’cause they ate sugar cereal for breakfast, THEN tater tots, then McDonalds for dinner while finishing off the evening with 4 hours to tv watching.
My kids eat junk sometimes. And they have moments of vegging out. But, they spent 90 minuets at the gym with me, and haven’t watched a bit of tv all day.
Except, the forth quarter of the Lions game. 0-16! I’m so impressed.
Comment by ccoffer on 12/28 @ 4:30 pm #
This stems mainly from the fact that fat people screw up the scenery. When you hear some asshole drone on about how overweight everyone is, invariably they will talk about the aesthetic aspect of it without realizing it.”They wear so and so clothes” or “They eat such and such food”. Its mainly a matter of them simply not wanting to see them. The same sort of impulse drives the “overpopulation” freaks. They don’t think there are really too many people per se, there are just too many who aren’t identical to them.
Hitler felt this way. He looked at the world and imagined how beautiful it would be if an awful lot of it were simply gotten rid of.
Comment by Carin on 12/28 @ 4:43 pm #
They eat such and such foodâ€Â. Its mainly a matter of them simply not wanting to see them. The same sort of impulse drives the “overpopulation†freaks. They don’t think there are really too many people per se, there are just too many who aren’t identical to them.
Not me. I likes fat people, ’cause they make me look skinner ;)
On a more serious note, I have overweight (seriously overweight) people in my family, and I just know how many of their ailments are related to their excess weight. To see youngish (40’s) people driving in carts ’cause their knees are shot … or whatever. It’s just pathetic, and I feel bad that they are lacking the motivation to improve their own life.
But – there is nothing funny about overweight kids. That’s just sad.
Comment by Carin on 12/28 @ 4:44 pm #
And, my own health nuttyness aside, it’s stupid to think that people are fat because it’s easily available. Healthy food is pretty accessible too. It may not taste as satisfying, but honestly I don’t always wanna eat that salad either.
Comment by B Moe on 12/28 @ 4:49 pm #
The Lion’s finally had a forth quarter? Congratulations! Which one was it?
Comment by ccoffer on 12/28 @ 4:51 pm #
My wife has gained, lost, gained, lost for the last 20 something years. I’m sure she might be healthier if she were thinner, but thin and healthy are both relative terms.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 12/28 @ 4:53 pm #
So, is this going to apply to Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell?
Comment by Big D on 12/28 @ 4:56 pm #
This has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with revenue streams. The government sees an easy way to increase tax revenue and an easier way to defend it. Who could be for childhood obesity? It’s for the children, dontchaknow?
I have been in the beverage business for decades and have seen this before. The government will raise the tax, retailers will demand that the manufacturers make up the difference, and the consumer will see very little difference. Gradually, the manufacturer will raise price and the retailer will follow suit. Consumers will foot the bill eventually and obesity rates will decline not a whit. The revenue stream, once realized, will never go away. Gov’t spending will increase and they’ll be on to the next “Health concern” they can hit with a tax.
You really want to tackle obesity in children, make them put down the game controller and get outside. Sugary drinks have been around forever, computers and video games are relatively new.
Comment by David Weisman on 12/28 @ 5:35 pm #
So I take it you don’t think the anti-smoking campaign was a good thing which saved many lives? How about other big government programs, such as requiring cars to be equipped with seat belts? Or the first anti smoking campaign – to stop cigarette companies from lying about the connection between smoking and lung cancer?
Comment by B Moe on 12/28 @ 5:42 pm #
Whether it is a good thing or not isn’t the issue, David. The question is is in appropriate for the Federal Government to use tax payer money for this purpose? And where in the Constitution is such a power granted to the Feds?
It would be a good thing if my old truck got a new paint job, and my neighbors would probably agree since I park out on the street, but that doesn’t mean I can force them to pay for it.
Comment by JHoward on 12/28 @ 5:45 pm #
I’m trying to verify the story of the guy who put $250 on them going winless and is now a multimillionaire. Foolish nod to the topic, kinda: Can I vote for redistributionism just to my house?
Comment by JHoward on 12/28 @ 5:46 pm #
One word, B Moe: Lobby.
Comment by B Moe on 12/28 @ 5:48 pm #
Nah, pretty much everybody in my neighborhood has a car needs painting, lol. I am not really the rich country club Republican tuberhead would have you believe.
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 12/28 @ 5:49 pm #
So I take it you don’t think the anti-smoking campaign was a good thing which saved many lives?
Where are all these immortals, David?
Comment by Kevin B on 12/28 @ 5:55 pm #
A few observations:
Nicotine suppresses appetite, pot gives you the munchies. So get the kids off pot and on to smoking ciggies again.
Then there was that whole anti animal fat crusade. There is increasing evidence that the switch from good old animal fat to carbohydrates was part of the reason that obesity has ’soared’.
As your government pays more and more of your medical bills, expect it to demand more and more control of your life. Anything perceived as ‘unhealthy’ will be officially sanctioned and heavily taxed.
Comment by ccoffer on 12/28 @ 5:58 pm #
I’ve gained 30 pounds since I quit. It took me two years to do it. I’m holding steady at 220. New Years resolution, here I come. heehee
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 12/28 @ 6:01 pm #
Then there was that whole anti animal fat crusade.
Yep. Now we know (provisionally) that the vegetable shortening which replaced lard and butter turned out to be much worse for your health.
Comment by Ric Locke on 12/28 @ 6:17 pm #
So “saving lives” is the metric, is it?
Well, reading David Weisman’s posts raises my blood pressure, which is a definite health hazard. A ban would up my life expectancy by a small but measurable amount. How ’bout it?
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Alec Leamas on 12/28 @ 6:20 pm #
“Having a health class now that teaches the food pyramid”
I’d rather see the chilluns get over an hour of semi-supervised, vigorous daily exercise in the schools. I think many would learn better after burning off that energy, and the calorie dense foods wouldn’t have nearly as much of an impact. Nutrition is important, but ten year olds aren’t going to be chosing arugula dressed with balsalmic anytime soon.
Progressivism has robbed the kids of the kinds of activities that used to keep them slim and fit. (anyone remember tag?) “Cup stacking” is for a Nation that has given up on itself.
Comment by V. Dare on 12/28 @ 6:20 pm #
“If you thought anti-smoking laws were a thing of the modern era, think again. In 1637, Plymouth Colony enacted the first anti-smoking law: a 12 pence fine for smoking in any street, barn, outhouse or highway, and for smoking anywhere further than 1 mile from your house. The fine increased to 2 shillings for a second offense. In 1640, a 5 shilling fine was enacted for any juror who smoked at any time during a trial, prior to giving a verdict. In 1669, smoking to and from church was added as a 12 pence fine.”
source
Comment by B Moe on 12/28 @ 6:30 pm #
They were hell on witches, too, what I hear.
Comment by V. Dare on 12/28 @ 6:33 pm #
No, not really.
“There were two witchcraft trials in Plymouth Colony, decades before the more famous Salem Witchcraft trials of 1692. Both Plymouth Colony witchcraft trials ended in not guilty verdicts: in fact the accusers were fined by the court for having made false accusations.”
same source.
Comment by Big D on 12/28 @ 6:46 pm #
V Dare,
And your point is?
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/28 @ 6:53 pm #
Calorie tax. 1 cent per calorie.
I bet someone’s thought of that……..
Comment by Abe Froman on 12/28 @ 6:58 pm #
Back in the day progressives used to attack fast food chains for resisting the slums but now that they are apparently racist for a different reason and, thus, undesirable, maybe pressure needs to be brought to bear on Whole Foods and other fagtastic purveyors of the preferred liberal douchebag food like soy milk and vegan goodies to open up shop in neighborhoods full of fatty victims. Isn’t it time we sued big green for conspiring to keep their organic, recycled, free-range, meat-free crap too expensive for the poor?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 12/28 @ 6:59 pm #
“I’d rather see the chilluns get over an hour of semi-supervised, vigorous daily exercise in the schools.”
Screw the “semi-supervised” part, turn loose in the schoolyard for 1/2 an hour with no supervision.
I’ll bet they re-invent dodgeball.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 12/28 @ 7:01 pm #
I HATE free range chicken eggs.
They’re runny!
Comment by Carin on 12/28 @ 7:09 pm #
I’ve gained 30 pounds since I quit. It took me two years to do it. I’m holding steady at 220. New Years resolution, here I come. heehee
Excellent! That you quit, of course. I’m really about being healthy. I could care less if someone else’s jeans are tight. But, if they start huffing and puffing going up the stairs …
You know, the P-90 X stuff is awesome… it’s hard, but it’s easy to adjust-down until you work yourself into it completely.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 12/28 @ 7:21 pm #
“Screw the “semi-supervised†part, turn loose in the schoolyard for 1/2 an hour with no supervision.”
I was trying to thread the needle between stacking cups and “Lord of the Flies.” In sum, if unsupervised, the kids who need the exercise the most sit and play D&D instead.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 12/28 @ 7:39 pm #
I’ve also thought that the Leftist prohibitionist thing is either more sinister or foolhardy than the given health reasons. Alcohol, tabacco, and lots of foods (meat, in particular) bear a social dimension in our culture. Many people share a cigar or dram with friends and family or people yet to be friends, and turkeys, hams, and rib roasts are common family dinner fare. I wouldn’t be half surprised if they don’t hate these things because they reinforce the established order of things, and get in the way of turning the whole world on its ear.
Comment by ccoffer on 12/28 @ 7:49 pm #
I wonder if the Somoans have these sorts of discussions?
Comment by dre on 12/28 @ 8:29 pm #
the personal is political
Comment by N. O'Brain on 12/28 @ 8:36 pm #
” In sum, if unsupervised, the kids who need the exercise the most sit and play D&D instead.”
Think of it as evolution in action.
Comment by irongrampa on 12/28 @ 9:08 pm #
It’s all social engineering, don’tcha know.
If you’re stupid enough to accede to these demands, too bad for y’all. I simply refuse to acknowledge that shit.
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 12/28 @ 9:21 pm #
If my nanny looked and sang like Julie Andrews I’d have done anything she said. Just saying.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 12/28 @ 9:33 pm #
A tyrant’s greed is periodically slaked, but a do-gooder’s zeal never lets the rest of us any peace.
Comment by Seth Williams on 12/28 @ 9:41 pm #
Carin: I bit the bullet and ordered the P90X stuff. I’m looking forward to getting into it as soon as have my knee rehabbed (training accident).
By the by, there was a retired CSM that came up with a program called “Max PT” which is simple and fun to do. It’s directed towards the military, but it’d be good for anyone who has an interest in improving their conditioning.
Comment by ccoffer on 12/28 @ 9:49 pm #
Are those Eggland’s best eggs considered health food? I could give a durn, but I can’t eat the cheap eggs since I started eating them a while back. They have some sort of health pitch. I just for get what it is. All I know is they are the best friggen eggs in da’ Ho Wi Wer-uh.
Comment by SDN on 12/29 @ 6:02 am #
Abe #30, the problem is that organic food will always be more expensive than so called factory farming. The means of getting rid of insects and weeds organically (picking insects and hoeing) are always more labor intensive and less effective than the e-vile alternatives.
Likewise, fertilizing with shit is less effective and more likely to spread disease than fertilizing with chemicals.
Bottom line: farming organically will always be more expensive and produce less food than factory farming.
Unless starvation of the poor is your goal, it’s a bad idea. The Left just lurves starving people, as evidenced by the unending series of Commies from Stalin to Mugabe who keep doing it.
Comment by Brett on 12/29 @ 7:05 am #
Most political activism is nothing but tyranny promoted by the conceited.
Comment by glenn on 12/29 @ 7:52 am #
Personally I plan to start an underground cheeseburger distibution system. I’ll be rich in no time.
Comment by john on 12/29 @ 8:54 am #
my wife is one of those awful awful people that uses a wheel chair in a grocery store. she had polio when she was a kid. she can walk a little bit but not too far. screw you guys.
Comment by bigbooner on 12/29 @ 8:54 am #
There are some school districts who shun the “vigorous” daily exercise for the kids. Some of it is just too dangerous for the little guys. Things like Red Rover and Dodgeball are much too aggressive. And we certainly can’t play something that has winners and more importantly “losers”. We must make sure that any outdoor activity ends up with everyone receiving a gold star. For “trying”.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 12/29 @ 9:07 am #
I was thinking of buying that P-90X thingy. Does that crap really work?
Comment by geoffb on 12/29 @ 9:14 am #
Lipidleggin, written in 1978 in the middle of the Carter years by F. Paul Wilson. He even got the State right, NY.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/29 @ 9:27 am #
Aw, John. I think the target of ridicule was people using chairs due to being fucking fat and NOT knowing how to put the fork down. NOT because their legs are useless. If you couldn’t have figured that out, you, too obviously have a disability.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 12/29 @ 9:32 am #
I too hate watching fat people eat. The really really fat ones get this look on their face like nothing in the world matters to them other than eating. It is like you could wiff a nerf football by their heads and they wouldn’t even notice. Go ahead call me an ahole I have been called much worse.
Comment by Bob Reed on 12/29 @ 10:28 am #
I don’t typically go in for the whole victimhood schtick,and will not in this case either. The whole “big tobacco” settlement was merely a boondoggle to the state sand trial lawyers associated with it. And the resulting tobacco taboo has simply given he states an excuse to both tax the heck out of it as well as stridently banning it in private concessions which happen to cater to the public…
Just because tobacco smoke may annoy me when eating, should the government have the right to tell a restaurant or bar owner that smoking is henceforth categorically forbidden in their establishment? And, if I as an employee dislike being exposed to tobacco smoke, shouldn’t the burden be on me to find another line of work instead of expecting the government to save me? Likewise, as a patron, if my favorite place doesn’t provide non-smoking areas, should all of the other patrons be inconvenienced simply to serve my wishes..? Or, if I am a smoker, why shouldn’t my choices be tolerated as much as anyone else’s? Seems like the same old trade-off between the rights of the individual and society at large…
I might also suggest that the whole second hand smoke argument is as specious as AGW; it was a means to an end. If you live in any town or city with a population greater than 10,000 I would suggest that you are exposed to as many toxins through automobile exhaust and other combustibles as through all but the most confined smoking situations…
Many of the same perspectives apply to the whole eeeeevil Obesity! proto-crusade. It is true that in many cases it is simply a lifestyle choice. But while it may not be your</i? personal choice, or indeed you may revile it, is it your or society’s place to decide if it is acceptable or not? I have seen many pithy, but gratuitous, comments about folks simply lacking willpower and disipline. These seem to discount people who have suffered mobility issues, or perhaps have some psychological issues that drive them to seek satisfaction, or emotional comfort, that they cannot get otherwise in eating; in these cases it is actually an illness and not some fatuous self-serving definition to be thrown about…
I’m not hand wringing mind you, but if some crazy fat-ban is allowed to be implemented, based on appealing to peoples personal prejudices as well as arguments about decreasing society’s overall health care expense, it will simply be the first step on the proverbial slippery slope to eliminating an ever increasing list of activities, or behaviours, that become the doo-gooders cause du jour…
If you’re worried about your children being fat, then engage in physical activities with them, instead of using the television as a babysitter. And, how about restricting their usage of the computer, TV, and video games; how about considering setting a good example by doing the same yourselves..? That would go a lot further than requiring our public schools to take mnore time away from actual learning to force our youth to become dieticians…
Make no mistake that this is an issue that goes directly to the heart of personal choice and freedom. Perhaps the ban-craze will be on alcohol and spirits, and who knows what after that. Let’s ensure that personal health remain a personal choice, and not another element of our lives that is accountable to the government…
Comment by nikkolai on 12/29 @ 10:31 am #
Julie Andrews was also lovely on TNT in last night’s “Sound of Music.” Even my hyperactive five year-old daughter hung in there for the whole movie. They don’t make them like that any more.
Comment by Carin on 12/29 @ 10:50 am #
Yea, John. My dad only has one leg, so he uses on of those things too.
But, honestly, I’ve seen mother/daughter combos and husband/wife duets in those carts.
Comment by Carin on 12/29 @ 10:52 am #
Mr Pink – yes, it is good. It generally is a really good all-around fitness thing. I was heavy with aerobic, light on weight/strength workouts, so it helped me there. Conversely, if you just do weights and ignore other areas of fitness you would benefit as well.
Also, if you do neither ;)
Comment by Mr. Pink on 12/29 @ 11:08 am #
Well I just ordered it for like 140 bucks. I hope it works. I do neglect cardio cause I hate running but the lifting part I do religiously.
Comment by Carin on 12/29 @ 11:17 am #
You are probably getting the updated version (I think it changed after I got it a year ago?)
I followed it exactly the first time through, but now I do the weight/strength workouts in addition to my own cardio. I keep meaning to go back and do the pylo an core synergestics workout (those are killer) …
Comment by Mr. Pink on 12/29 @ 11:19 am #
Is it made out like “do this on day 1 this one day 2″ or do I just pick and choose what to do?
Comment by Carin on 12/29 @ 11:28 am #
Nope, it gives you a day-by-day regime.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 12/29 @ 11:35 am #
Nice. I look forward to getting a 4 pack again. Some reason the bottom two never come in no matter what I do. Even out of basic and slimmed down to 147 pounds I never had a defined 6 pack only a 4. After that I said screw it I am just going to get as massive as I can. Kinda laid off the cardio for the most part after that and would only run at most 3 miles at a time at the most.
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/29 @ 12:06 pm #
Where’s Dan Collins?
Comment by Lt. York on 12/29 @ 12:07 pm #
Busy on project right now, guys, but thought I would take a minute and add this to the debate.
This was published Feb, 26, 2008 in the Omaha World Herald, our primary newspaper. [to no avail, of course.]
I wrote it and convinced my friend Robert to sing on to it. The editorial board of the paper agreed with me, and was nice enough to run an op-ed supporting the concept on the opposite page. Still didn’t help…[sigh]
Anyway, here it is:
Midlands Voices
Liberty comes first; veto the smoking ban
BY J. MICHAEL SKINNER AND ROBERT A. FOSTER
The writers live in Omaha. Skinner, a smoker, is CEO of a financial planning firm. Foster, a nonsmoker, is president of a prescription-drug management company.
The rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness†are enshrined not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution of the State of Nebraska. Freedom of assembly and commerce are also important concepts in the founding documents of our country.
We believe these principles apply to the smoking debate. In response to the statewide smoking ban, we respectfully urge a veto by the governor and humbly request that the Legislature not override it.
Here’s why: The market works  more slowly than a ban, but it works.
In the two years prior to the partial smoking ban in Omaha, in response to customer demand, Shirley’s Diner went nonsmoking on Sunday mornings, as did Vidlak’s Brookside Cafe. Louie M’s Burger Lust moved smoking from the larger to the smaller of its rooms, and Miracle Hills Cafe and Coffee banned smoking. Nearly all chains banned it; almost every new restaurant and some bars opened nonsmoking.
Ultimately, most places would have been nonsmoking, with a few left over for smokers, business owners and employees to freely pursue their rights to freedom of assembly, commerce, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Believe it or not, it makes some people happy to smoke particularly on a Sunday morning with breakfast, a cup of coffee and The World-Herald on the table.
The public health argument holds water in coerced situations, i.e., the Qwest Center, government offices, etc. We support smoking bans in those types of places. In noncoerced situations, however, we believe the public health argument is negated by freedom of assembly and the right to engage in commerce.
A free society is ordered in such a way that people are free to assemble and engage in the commerce they wish. Those who don’t wish, don’t go. For the most part, our society already operates this way; i.e., we all choose not to patronize some businesses for various reasons. We respectfully and humbly submit to our fellow citizens that we have no right to go into a restaurant and be served in the way and environment we wish. If the music is too loud, we can ask management to turn it down so it does not damage our hearing. But if the owner declines, we have no right to force him.
The owner’s right to operate a business as he sees fit and target customers accordingly trumps our right to a quiet experience. We believe the same principle applies to smoking.
Exactly the same public health argument can be made about loud music in bars. But we believe nobody wants that banned, because people can generally hear the loud music upon entering and choose accordingly.
Therefore we believe the same approach should be taken with smoking: The only law needed is to make sure that people know what they are getting. Require business to put up a door sign saying “Smoking Allowed†or “Smoking Not Allowed.†Then people can choose for themselves. That is the way a free society operates.
If the owner of a restaurant wants to allow smoking, the employees knowingly choose to pursue or keep their employment there and the customers choose to patronize it, then we believe the above words, concepts and rights apply.
Many will say that we live in a democracy and the majority should rule. But we respectfully submit that we live in a constitutional republic, which by its very definition protects the minority against what Alexis de Tocqueville called the “tyranny of the majority.â€Â
Indeed, if the conditions of liberty in noncoerced situations are to be determined by the majority rather than the consequences of the abuse of that liberty, then liberty effectively loses its meaning. This is our most important point.
Securing and preserving individual liberty was of paramount importance to our founders. That liberty has brought us unrivaled prosperity and abundance. Our Legislature, governor and courts are privileged to be the guardians of that liberty; so dear a price was paid for it. Protecting it should be their highest principle and utmost duty.
We believe that this legislation and most of its supporters are well-intentioned, but it is imprudent and takes us in a dangerous direction. We must always remember that Friedrich Hayek’s “road to serfdom†is paved with good intentions.
Comment by Bob Reed on 12/29 @ 3:17 pm #
Lt,
A thoughtful and well written piece; thanks for sharing it with the rest of us…
Best Wishes
Comment by Robert Speirs on 12/29 @ 3:34 pm #
I have never smoked tobacco, but now that I’m getting up into the “senior” – read “crotchety old wreck” – years, I thought I might like to smoke a pipe. My dad did and I still remember the smell as soothing. Also Sherlock and Maigret liked the pipe. So I bought one and some tobacco and I’ve smoked it a couple of times. My problem is that I can’t get started being even an occasional smoker. I would enjoy a puff now and then. There must be a knack to it, though. I forget to fire the thing up even once a week. How can I learn to smoke? There’s little out there on technique. Someone suggested that I start with nicotine gum and work my way backwards, following the stop-smoking directions in reverse. But that doesn’t appeal to me. I don’t like gum.
There was a big “stop smoking now!!” trailer at the Seafood Festival, so I thought about asking them, since they figure themselves to be experts on tobacco, but I didn’t need the grief. What am I missing? I thought this tobacco stuff was dangerously addictive!
Comment by Ella on 12/29 @ 3:52 pm #
Robert Speirs.
I think you’re missing the peer pressure and coolness factor. Find someone who looks really cool smoking a pipe and hang around him a lot, or find a group of people who smoke all the time and make fun of those who don’t. You’ll pick up the habit in no time!
Comment by Percy Dovetonsils on 12/29 @ 4:04 pm #
From what I understand from 50s sitcoms, pipe smoking is greatly enhanced by wearing a cardigan sweater.
Comment by Robert Speirs on 12/29 @ 4:59 pm #
Unfortunately I can’t think of a way to convince large numbers of children to become addicted to pipe-smoking. So my dream of making a million by spiking pipe tobacco with bubble-gum or french-fry flavor will have to be put on hold.
Comment by Sdferr on 12/29 @ 5:03 pm #
It’s been done Robert S.
Comment by Serr8d on 12/29 @ 5:07 pm #
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/29 @ 12:06 pm #
Where’s Dan Collins?
Good question. Anybody?
Comment by Mossberg500 on 12/29 @ 5:10 pm #
Robert S, you’ll need a Joe Camel marketing character, possibly Frenchy the Fry.
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/29 @ 5:40 pm #
I hate cigarette and cigar smoke. For some reason, I LOVE pipe smoke. I bet that’s a habit I could get going without too much trouble. I’m glad it isn’t popular for that reason.
Comment by JohnAnnArbor on 12/29 @ 6:04 pm #
We need a new post. More majorette pictures, Darleen? The Rose Parade is coming up soon!
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/29 @ 6:27 pm #
No, it is really the intake vs. output equation. When I was young I worked as a counselor in a youth camp and put away a lot of food. But I was also walking about 5 miles a day or more, and trying to keep up with the kids. At university the same – I walked to all of my classes and my pace wasn’t a stroll, and Michigan State has a large campus. When I was in law school I gained weight because of all of the sitting and studying, but afterwards I dropped back down as I got to running again. I have gained weight since I stopped running (knees lodged a protest) but am dropping it since I got back into walking.
The answer is real simple – keep the kids moving. They burn off the calories that way and they get less on your nerves as they are outside running around. And they sleep better at night having exhausted themselves (know that from the camp – even the teenagers were crashing by ten – ten-thirty). Recess and running around outside ought to be mandatory for little kids. Burn off that fat, burn off that energy.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/29 @ 6:35 pm #
Watch infants and toddlers – they go everywhere as fast as they can go, and want to run around as much as they can. They want to move, so keep them moving. If it isn’t below zero or sleeting/pouring, get the kids outside and have them move.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 12/29 @ 6:39 pm #
#31 N.O’Brain:
I think ’semi-supervised’ is right. You don’t want three kids to gang up on another and pummel him or her without an adult being there to stop it. Little kids can be vicious too.
Otherwise, let them run around and play.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 12/29 @ 8:16 pm #
“How can I learn to smoke?”
Pipe smoking is a skill before it is a pleasure. Keeping your pipe lit takes experience (and a seasoned/broken-in pipe)
Try cigars for a while.
Comment by The Lost Dog on 12/29 @ 8:57 pm #
“Watch infants and toddlers – they go everywhere as fast as they can go, and want to run around as much as they can. They want to move, so keep them moving. If it isn’t below zero or sleeting/pouring, get the kids outside and have them move.”
Ha! My son would go out in the snow naked, and get pised off when we carried him back inside because his lips were turning blue.
Now? WII is his source of excercise.
Comment by mojo on 12/29 @ 9:34 pm #
So…
D’ye think Van Dyke got any?
Comment by J."Trashman" Peden on 12/29 @ 9:38 pm #
So I take it you don’t think the anti-smoking campaign was a good thing which saved many lives? How about other big government programs, such as requiring cars to be equipped with seat belts?
Then, Weisman, I take it you are going to outlaw….What?
Comment by Bob Reed on 12/29 @ 9:38 pm #
Probably,
he was handsome, charismatic, in excellent physical condition, and funny…
Comment by Sidney Greenstreet's Ass on 12/29 @ 9:55 pm #
Right. I suppose none of YOU saints ever snuck out behind the gym to pass around a tin of lard…
Comment by J."Trashman" Peden on 12/29 @ 10:34 pm #
Right. I suppose none of YOU saints ever snuck out behind the gym to pass around a tin of lard…
No, much less a ton of lard, like Sidney Greenstreet and his ass.
Comment by Brett on 12/30 @ 7:07 am #
John, so what? Anecdotes of personal tragedy have no place in a discussion of general principles. They do not put your position beyond debate.
Comment by maggie katzen on 12/30 @ 11:56 pm #
whoever this is, thanks. just watched Christmas in Connecticut tonight and read up on the guy. interesting background on that one.
Pingback by Steynianism 302 « Free Canuckistan! on 12/31 @ 11:17 am #
[...] FOREVER IN THE NURSERY– “Obesity is very today, very right now. Obesity is the new smoking” …. [...]
Comment by Rob Crawford on 1/1 @ 5:34 pm #
Physics calories or dietary calories?