posted May 26, 2007
In several states, politicians, the concerned media, health-related agencies, and citizen/voters are stepping up and taking a stand against the physically harmful use of tobacco. Somehow this type of action needs to be exercised throughout Southeast Tennessee. However, it seems we have a small group of tobacco-lobbied legislators who seem to want to control our freedom to decide.
It should be the right of each town and/or each business establishment serving food and beverages, or serving the public at large, to be allowed authority to disallow tobacco use inside the premises. But this is not the case in our fair state.
While it is, and should be, the right of every adult to choose whether to use tobacco or not, it is also the right of every person, who doesn't smoke, to breathe clean air.
Think about the people who must breathe in second-hand smoke because they work at an establishments or area that allows smoking. Do they have rights? They are inhaling every toxic elements in tobacco smoke that smokers inhale.
In cigarette smoke, there are over 4,000 chemicals that have been proven and certified by the CDC as physically harmful, and many are deadly toxic, when ingested over time. It is estimated that 2 in 10 people exposed to second-hand or passive smoke in social and work settings will experience the same health problems that smokers will.
Both active and retired flight attendants with lung or cancer problems, who flew on airlines that allowed smoking, gave medical proof to that.
However, it is a statistical fact that tobacco smoking is harmful, and potentially deadly, to both those who that smoke, and those that breathe second hand smoke. And that makes it a public health hazard. People in Southeast Tennessee are dying 4-6 per day, from tobacco use, and at the rate of over 9500 per year statewide. If that doesn't prove that tobacco is a serious problem to the public's well-being, then what more proof is needed?
Well...Let's see.
In the local (Southeast Tennessee) region, statistically, over 32% of young people between 11 and 19 smoke or use tobacco, and are addicted to it. Increase the age to 24 and the percentage rate climbs to over 35%. Given current fillers and tobacco mixture found to current cigarette and smokeless tobacco, and projected consumption statistics, that means that one in every five youth in this area will never live beyond 50 years because of illnesses caused by tobacco use. Also, keep in mind that second-hand smoke is just as dangerous when inhaled as smoking directly.
While I strongly believe that we should maintain and protect our freedom of choice, I do not believe we should continue to allow people to willfully poison themselves and others to a slow death at the cost of everyone who smokes or doesn't. We have laws against the use of heroin cocaine, and other addictive narcotics. We have even have seatbelt laws requiring use in priviate vehicles. Why don’t we have laws limiting the intake of nicotine and air contamination in public areas?
How increasingly threatening is the continued use of tobacco products (in its current makeup) by today’s youth and adults going to be in the coming years? If tobacco is now proven to be directly or indirectly causing over 26 citizens in this state to die each day, what is it going to take to wake the public up to the growing deadly threat to our state?
Also, think about this. Why should the non-smokers continue to pay for those that choose to abuse their health by using tobacco? Currently, according to insurance statistics, every citizen in the US covered by health insurance pays 30% more in premiums to cover the health costs of those suffering from tobacco related illnesses.
Duke University recently published a study stating that every pack of tobacco products costs the American public $40 per pack. Could that be part of the reason dozens of health conscience states are starting to take a hard look at how much it is costing the American people to allow these people such an unhealthy free choice? If people want to smoke fine...but let them pay for it, and take the massive health cost burden off those that don't. When users start paying the estimated health cost of smoking, $40-$60 per pack, then maybe we might start having a healthier society, more productivity, and cheaper health insurance rates.
But how do our state leaders feel about this deadly problem? How do our state leaders stand on this issue? Well, there are some responsible agencies that have collected proof of how Tennessee leaders openly and publicly defend the use of and distribution Tobacco to its citizens, both young and old.
Tennessee state government gets over $260 million per year from the National Tobacco Growers Settlement Trust, and spends $0 on tobacco use prevention or control. Since 2001 the state of Tennessee has received around $1 billion from the Trust settlement, and every cent has been allocated totally to the general fund to pay the state debt. Interestingly enough is that not one cent goes to TennCare or any health-related agency in the state. However, health costs in Tennessee, directly attributed to tobacco use, amount to almost $2 billion per year.
Facts are that nicotine in tobacco is the most addictive unregulated drug existing in America today. It is responsible for more deaths in Tennessee each day than cocaine, alcohol, traffic accidents, suicide, Aids, homicides, and fire combined. Sadly, the state, and our own local governments, spend zero dollars to curtail or prevent it.
The voting public needs to be informed on how negligent and unapproachable some of the top leadership of the Tennessee Legislature has been, continues to be, and likely will continue to be as long as they serve in office and accept tobacco and other pro tobacco lobby influence. There in now a tobacco prevention and cessation bill up for legislative floor approval this legislative year that could be rejected because the committees that approve them for full floor votes, in both the state Senate and House, are stacked by pro-tobacco legislators who are controlled, directly or indirectly, by the tobacco interests. It is interesting that all health-related anti-tobacco bills or similar legislation is directed to the agriculture committee by the speaker of the house, who is an outspoken pro tobacco member backed actively by the tobacco and farm lobbyist.
One would hope that if these current bills fail that the health related agencies that are promoting and working on our state legislature for tobacco control would possibly look at a different approach. Others states decided to battle the tobacco problem by seeking stronger clean air laws. Since second hand smoke has been proven to be a toxic air health danger, just like plant emissions or auto emissions, maybe laws can be enacted that will protect the public from toxic air pollution caused by second hand smoke in enclosed and crowded public areas. The chemicals in second-hand smoke are just as toxic as any emissions from sources now outlawed and controlled by air control agencies in the state.
And, if the farmers of this state are concerned about losing income from tobacco farming, than why not teach them how to grow other crops; maybe like corn, grapes, or saw grass. It is now more profitable and far less expensive to the health of the public. Other states have tried it and it has worked for them…even in Virginia.
Another approach to limiting smoking in public places is the fact that the establishments are limiting customers who have breathing problems and cannot eat or visit locations where smoking is allowed. This would seem to constitute denial of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities laws…the same as if they were physically disabled. Then again we could also say that exposing employees involuntarily to second hand smoke in bars or grills poses health dangers to them that might come under OSHA laws. They are being forced to work in unsafe conditions and environments without proper protections from inhaling the toxic chemicals contained in tobacco smoke.
The Campaign for a Healthy and Responsible Tennessee, and other anti-tobacco efforts are presently finding ways to change the minds of the Speaker of the House, and those few other legislators who directly and indirectly benefit from the millions of dollars that the tobacco lobby spends on them, and work with existing federal laws and find ways to enforce them help the vast majority of citizens that don’t smoke or are discriminated against by establishments that encourage smoking in their locations.
The region’s county mayors and city mayors seem to want to promote a healthier lifestyle in our community. We should hope that they will join the other regional elected officials and become more actively involved with this deadly threat that is killing 2-3 of their citizens a day in their community. I for one applaud the reporters and editors that are concerned enough to publish the truth about how the tobacco companies are deceiving the public, and controlling the elected state officials, and would hope that the other media of this area will step forward and make the public more aware of these health dangers and facts and put enough continuous pressure on local and state politicians to force them to change the laws and let citizens have a say about this public health hazard.
Stat references are available upon request. Will someone in the media please step up and educate the public on this deadly subject?
George Cudabac
Retired non-profit volunteer
Current survivor who has lost both parents and all their families to tobacco-related illnesses.
Concerned pro-active voter
gcudabac@copper.net
* * *
Just as people choose to smoke, it takes a choice to work in places that allow smoking and to eat at places that allow smoking. The idea that one can protect the freedom of choice for smokers but disallow them to practice their choice in public due to others who willingly choose to work in an area or eat in area that allows smoking is break down in rationality.
It is all freedom of choice. No one is telling them to work or eat at those restaurants. They choose to do so and willingly accept whatever possible risks that may come to them, rather they recognize the risk or not.
There should be no state regulations, or any other form of government regulations placed upon restaurants or tobacco companies. They regulate too much already. Let's continue to regulate businesses and see what sort of economy and what form of government we end up with. Most likely it will be the complete opposite of what this country was supposed to be (even a Democracy is not what this country is suppose to be).
At the same time, what are these "public places"? The park? No. The sidewalks of the city? No. Most of these "public places" are restaurants, which are not public places to begin with. Restaurants are privately owned businesses, not public places. Therefore, it is not up to the people in the restaurant or the government to them how to run their business. It is up to the restaurant and what they wish to do.
The same principle applies to every government regulation placed on businesses. It's no longer about someone being able to choose their own line of work, but now about someone having to follow millions of regulations that he would have probably followed in the first place if he wanted to make money (any other person would sell you his worst if he didn't want to make money.) Some would say, "Well, some regulations are certainly needed." I would say that, if people knew how to think rationally and understand the full effect of their choice, they won't need government regulations. It's not only on the hands of those who own the businesses, but those who buy from the businesses.
As a consumer, an individual chooses the product they want. If it's horrible, they can then complain to others and expose the mediocrity of the products and expose what's bad about it and then take to a court if they can prove it's going to be harmful. The regulations are just there to remind you how idiotic consumers tend to be in the world.
As for the farmers, they can grow whatever they wish. That is the beauty of the freedom of choice. The only mistake farmers make is that they use government money in order to get their farm up. But, at any rate, if they feel growing this product is most beneficial for them, they should certainly choose to grow tobacco. And as long as tobacco exists and the tobacco companies are able to express their freedom of choice in providing their product to those who choose to buy it, then they will continue to make their products. Until someone says, "Hey, you're not allowed to put that into your body" (like they did with alcohol previously and are doing with drugs), then it is the legal right of anyone to produce, to sell, and to buy tobacco products.
Personally, I hope they do not. As a person with the freedom of choice, you have the right to put whatever you want in your body as long as it is not harming anyone...the only difference with smokers in restaurants is that those who are going into them are CHOOSING to go there. So, then, they should go to jail as well for choosing to be in second-hand smoke. When dealing with drugs, most of the harm comes from someone forcing it upon someone. It cannot be called force if an individual chooses to eat or work at a place that allows smoking. It is called choice.
Business owners will decide what is best for their business. They do not need others telling them how to make their money, only that they should not do it immorally. These people want to MAKE money. In fact, smoking regulations in restaurants would be a violation of private property and freedom of choice. If they find this the better way to make money, then they will do so. If they find the opposite is the best, they will change. That is their choice. It is not up to the "public" and it is not up to the government. All the government needs to do is to protect their rights. If anyone chooses to go in there, that is their choice. If they don't like smoking, they should get out as soon as possible and either learn how to cook, or find restaurants that don't allow smoking. It's that simple. That easy.
For the record, I am not a smoker. And, by the way, if the prices were raised, the smokers would still buy the product. It would be much like gasoline. They want it, they'll get it. However, it is not the government's place to tell them what the prices should be. It is up to the company. Government interference with business...Very disasterous. Look at the places that practice that idea and look at the stagnation of those countries or the destruction of those countries. Most of the time, it's dealing with third world countries who need the freedom of business, but the government does not allow it. That is the future of this country, whether anyone wants to recognize it or not.
Tyler Hamilton
Chattanooga
DanteAzrael@yahoo.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |