Big government everywhere:
Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.
The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city’s 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.
Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils and turn up in foods from pie crusts to french fries to doughnuts.
I am, quite simply, stunned.
ThymeZone
The nanny state is here! The Deciders know best.
A government model that can take over the functions of the church and tell you who you can marry isn’t going to shy away from telling you what you can eat.
You’re either with us, or you’re with the Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) terrorists.
capelza
Ha…I always warned of this. First they’ll go for the cigarettes (ewwww…icky, bad, bad things…easy target) then they’ll come for your butter (or in this case, apparantly, Crico).
What town is this?
Greg
Stunned? Pundits have been predicting this for a long time. There’s no problem to small, no matter too personal for the government to trust you with it.
Punchy
Ah….Republicans….the party of big government. Are they banning cis-fats, too, or is this just a War On E-Alkenes?
Now shut up and eat your cis-fat, sugar-free, low-carb, sodium-reduced cupcakes, brought to you by your NYC government, who–amazingly–knows a deadly bearclaw when it sees one, but not deadly, acrid, toxic air surrounding the WTC for all workers to inhale.
srv
As we shuffle inexorably towards single-payer gov’t health care, Rethuglicans will support crap like this. They’re going to support whatever the Boomers want to get their vote (what the GOP calls values). Gov’t can regulate every other aspect of food service, why not the ingredients?
Funny, if the Darrells of the world get their way, we’ll be living in a crypto-authoritarian nanny-utopia.
Coach Potato
Trans fats are absolutely deadly. And most Amerikans are obviously too stupid to know what’s best for themselves.
That said, if Big Guvmint was also taking care of everyone’s Health Care Bills then fine, they have a right to do things that would reduce the amount of heart disease in this country. But they’re not, they don’t.
Faux News
(Homer Simpson voice) Bearclaws! Yum!
Bombadil
It’s about time! No one should be subjected to second-hand trans fats!
If you want to eat trans-fatty foods, go out onto the sidewalk where you won’t bother the rest of us!
Coach Potato
Say, there’s no link to follow and this is a *City* issue. Which City are we talkin’ about here?
The Other Steve
I’ve been studying this a bit.
Partially Hydrogenated oil is a process whereby the oil is heated and then infused with hydrogen. This turns the oil into a semi-solid. Much like butter, only a lot cheaper.
The thing is, they’ve since discovered that these hydrogenated oils are really bad for you because they include high amounts of trans fat.
More here at wiki
Many restaurants and food providers are abandongin trans fats already. Wendy’s announced they would.
I would prefer a world where I had choices, and I could choose the best choice for me. Unfortunately, it appears that for some reason the food market has abandoned choice. All we’re left with is bad choices.
The worst thing I ever heard this year was the FDA approving a plan to spray coldcuts with a virus that eats bacteria. They claimed it’s going to save us from food poisoning.
What it’s really going to do is result in a lot less safe handling of meat.
We need to get back to basics. Knock off the chemically laden foods that make it cheap and easy to ship and store and get back to the foods from nature that we were intelligently designed to eat.
Pb
I was happy when trans fats were labelled, and I’ve been to at least one restaurant that is proud of being trans fat free, (they serve buffalo burgers too, incidentally :)) but I can’t imagine trying to enact or enforce a ban of trans fats–it’d be almost as bad as trying to ban corn syrup or something. I’ll say one thing, if they keep this up, New York will never be able to legally host another World’s Fair, or for that matter probably any sort of fair or carnival as we know them.
Paul L.
I am POed about the health nazis here in Pittsburgh.
As for banning trans fats in NY.
To paraphrase Kos
Screw them, they elected their nanny state government.
Of course, I will never step foot in New York city if I can help it.
Punchy
Yeah, if you don’t mind your foodbill skyrocketing. Chemicals like preservatives make the food last, ensuring less waste, less trash, less packaging necessary. Fewer trips to King Soopers means less traffic, less gas wasted, less wasted time, more time with family.
Chemicals have become a boogeyman in food. Many of them are harmless, a few are completely necessary. A HUGE amount of foodstuffs wouldn’t even be possible to produce without preservatives, which would leave your grocery store looking circa-1985 Russia and prices astronomical.
Faux News
I forgot to add the obvious:
“You can have my chocolate glazed donut when you pry it from my cold, dead hands”.
No, I’m not kidding either.
Maybe I should change “chocolate glazed donut” to “trans fat item”.
VidaLoca
Punchy nails it. Let’s not think for a moment that the government, on any level, gives the tiniest little rats ass about public health in the abstract, because it doesn’t. It does care somewhat about the social overhead costs of maintaining a workforce, which is the reason for banning smoking. Today they’ll ban donuts fried in trans-fats, tomorrow they’ll ban potato chips fried in trans-fats, next day they’ll ban beer and wine and then we won’t have anything to talk (civilly) about here on Fridays.
All of that said, though, I can see a public interest in what they’re doing; or to put it differently it seems to me like a lot of the negative response above (while abstractly justifiable) is abstractly abstract. Say instead of banning donuts fried in trans-fats they were to give you a choice: you could have donuts fried in trans-fats, or donuts fried in non-trans fats. Everyone gets donuts, everyone is happy. Mmmmm… donuts, Homer.
But now that you’ve got the choice, and assuming that the not trans-fat donuts are healthier and just as good-tasing — who would want to eat the trans-fat-fried donuts? So what’s the point of the choice? And what’s the point of the complaint?
(Pssst, Punchy — the deadly bearclaws aren’t deep fried. I know for sure, I just saw one a moment ago. It was right here, on my desk…)
Pb
How sad.
David
BREAKING: Fifteen civil libertarians dead of heart attacks after news of trans-fat ban is reported. Irony threat level raised to orange.
NeilS
Who are these health police?!!!
As Bombadil says, there is no such thing as second hand trans fat, thus no threat to non-participants.
Paul L.
Why?
The Big Apple, Part III
The Big Apple, Part II
The Big Apple, Part I
Here is the only reason I can think to go to NY.
“And another thing: when did most New York women become hookers? “
The Other Steve
My foodbill is already skyrocketing. And I’m going to blame it on the morons who consolidated things because they thought Transportation was always going to be cheap and easy.
So now instead of processing the food locally, it comes from Cleveland by truck.
And they had to stuff all the preservatives in there so that they could ship it by truck so far.
Bah, bullshit. If you’ve ever been to Europe and seen the selection of food they have it’s so much better and tastier. You buy in smaller quanties and buy what your gonna eat in the next day or two. There’s a bakery not too far from us that we go to occasionally. They have awesome bread, and wonderful quiches and pastries and such and they taste wonderful. And it’s not that much more expensive. Their quiches are the same price as the frozen shit at the grocery store.
Our obsession with preservatives and bulk purchasing and so on has resulted in a food chain which is unhealthy and tastes like shit.
The Other Steve
Great, but give me a fucking choice as to whether my fries are fried in trans-fat or not!
I DO NOT have a problem with consumers demanding better from producers. It’s part of the Free Market.
capelza
Neil, while I am opposed to the health police, the threat to non participants is monetary. My health insurance rates have sky rocketed in the past decade. How much of that is from people eating crap food?
Why should I and my family, who eat carefully, have to pay for the bad choices others make?
I don’t agree in spirit with what I just said, but it an argument that can be made. The extremes…such as banning smoking a private, one person office or bars (because we all know we go there for our health)…what’s next?
orogeny
Problem is, they don’t. That’s why they push to outright ban these things. If people have a choice, most of them pick the thing that tastes better whether it’s healthy or not.
Just an example: Remember when McDonalds French fries were delicious? People used to go to McDonalds just to get fries. Now they taste like cardboard (just like all the other chains). When they were good, they were fried in beef tallow. The health Nazis made them switch to vegetable oil to keep us from clogging our arteries.
Why do you think they have to completely ban smoking rather than allowing bars to choose? If they have the choice, the smokers (and their friends) go the to bars that let them smoke and the business of the non-smoking bars sucks. They end up with a crowd of self-righteous assholes who sit around bragging about how fresh their clothes smell. For this kind of crap to really work, you have to remove any options.
I’m 52 years old and a lifelong liberal (ex-radical) and I think this country is slowly going to hell. The ideas of individual freedom upon which this nation was founded are slowly but surely disappearing as a result of prigs on both sides of the political spectrum. We’re trading our freedoms for a mommy state that will (supposedly) protect us from all danger.
Pb
Paul L.,
Because I’ve been there, and I know what you’re missing. If it isn’t “The Greatest City In The World” (and I definitely haven’t been to them all :)), it’s certainly up there. And let me tell you, I’m not about to not go to New York City because they have a Starbucks… Jesus, if that was the standard, I couldn’t live in my own town, or practically anywhere, for that matter.
Punchy
Is it going to be illegal to sell food with banned triglycerides, illegal to produce them, or illegal to possess them? Can I move to NYC and become a cop outlawing donuts (yes, please, PLEASE fill in the irony joke here)?
I smell a Prohibition-style French Fry Black Market, with dozens of NYC trucks stealthly marked “Roses” or “Guns” hauling in barrels of trans-fatty acids, unloaded in the middle of the night to underground fryers…with potato wedges and hash browns to be sold in dime bags, with salt and pepper extra…
over it
In my opinion…if a certain ‘ingredient’ is going to be banned or attacked here…it should be high fructose corn syrup. It’s use by foodie companies is purely financial (sugar is indeed pricier)…and I am pretty sure that it’s affect on the health of Americans has been more damaging than Trans-fats.
Trans fat has gotten a lot of hype of late….while high frutctose corn syrup still seems to be gliding under the radar. I would bet that most do not realize how bad for one’s health it actually is. And, it is EVERYWHERE these.
Just my two cents.
KC
Well, I don’t know anything about McD’s fries except that I ate them the other day and they tasted pretty good. That said, obviously this is going overboard. What I fear is that if NYC does this, the State of California will do this. Crazy.
over it
DAYS. These days.
Just as a side note….the foodie industry only pushes out what Americans will stuff in. Overall, Americans are very, very poorly educated when it comes to health. Either that, or they are just plain stupid.
The local T.G.I. Fridays restuarant (it is a chain) has been advertising their new appetizers endlessly on the boob-tube. The list consists of: 1) Fried Green Beans, 2) Fried Macaroni and Cheese, 3) Fried Potato Wedges w/Cheese Dipping Sauce, 4) Bread Sticks w/ Cheese and Pepperoni and Sausage Dipping Sauce.
We end up yelling at the screen each time we see the commercial. Absolutely disgusting. Horrifying. And, I bet, making money hand over fist.
Fried Green Beans?
Faux News
Oh hell, TGIF should just push it even further. I recommend fried lard with bacon and a bowl of warm liquid butter for dipping.
The BK commercials with the creepy King character make me wince and cringe.
over it
Sad thing is, if they made it look purty and had a funny commerical about it….people would buy it.
I guess perhaps I should just mark it up to it being another form of Darwinism. Survival of the the most fit. Literally.
;)
orogeny
That’s right…the American people are just too stupid to weigh the cost vs benefit of their choices. We need some kind of nanny to make sure they make the right choices.
Gosh, no one who wasn’t stupid or ignorant would actually eat something that wasn’t good for them simply because it tastes good and they think the good flavor is worth the slightly increased risk of some sort of statistically possible health problem at some unknown time in the future.
Let’s start making a list of every activity that might be dangerous and get busy banning them. Think about how many people are injured every year skateboarding. What idiots! All they get out of it is fun. Scuba diving, hang gliding, eating candy…the list is endless!
Llelldorin
Do I understand correctly that this bans Crisco, but butter and lard are both perfectly OK?
That might make food really good, if a bit more expensive.
ThymeZone
Butter and lard don’t have trans fats, but the problem with them is that they are saturated fats. Bad mojo for your blood chemistry, too.
The new Nurse Practitioner State will help you decide what to eat, you needn’t worry your pretty little head.
capelza
pssst…my mom makes her own lard and butter…we can fix you up, for a price. Meet us down by the cement bridge..and bring lots of cash.
neil
Llelldorin, that’s the idea, yes. It’s not about banning excessively fatty food, it’s about banning ‘harmful’ fats.
The ban has nothing to do with the smoking ban, either, that’s some sloppy journalism. The smoking ban does not have the goal of stopping adults from hurting themselves with smoke; it has the goal of protecting employees from working surrounded with second-hand smoke. There’s no such thing as second-hand trans fats, obviously.
Now, if NYC slapped a punitive tax on trans fats, that would dovetail nicely with their anti-smoking efforts.
neil
no one who wasn’t stupid or ignorant would actually eat something that wasn’t good for them
Kinda like lead paint chips.
neil
(A bad analogy, though, since lead paint is better than non-lead paint; trans-fats are simply cheaper than natural unsaturated fats, and I don’t think I’ve head anyone argue that they work or taste any better.)
The Other Steve
Were they ever fried in beef tallow? I know that they added beef “flavoring” up until a few years ago when the Vegetarians complained. (Because after all, if I’m a Vegan I’m going to McDonalds and not get a hamburger)
We banned smoking her about two years ago, and from what I can tell there was a short term loss in business, but then once people found out they could go get pizza without smelling like a cigarette, a different crowd started going out.
And the thing is, those who don’t smoke have more money.
Now, it’d have been nice if there was some sort of choice, but the reality is that’s near impossible to advertise and that’s the problem. But when you started to look around at restaurants, their smoking section had become less than 1/4th the size of the non-smoking area and it was usually being filled by non-smokers who didn’t want to wait for a table. It really didn’t matter much.
There was a study I saw a while back about playgrounds. When I was a kid we had metal jungle gyms on blacktop surfaces.
Oh it was so horrible. Little johnny could get hurt.
So they started messing around with wood construction, and sand underneath and things like that. Nice safe playgrounds where kids couldn’t get hurt.
The study concluded that the rate of children in the emergency room for broken bones and such didn’t change.
ThymeZone
You can’t really do a lot better than this.
This is a delicious way to kill yourself, really.
Please wipe the drool from your keyboard.
SeesThroughIt
Fuckin’ with donuts is bad enough, but if these motherfuckers even think about messing with my beloved In-n-Out Burger, then I will give them Max Julien’s famous choice: We can handle this like gentlemen, or we can get into some ol’ gangster shit.
Bombadil
On our trip to Tuscany a few years ago, during a tour of a vineyard, the proprietor brought us out some toasted crusty bread with a thin layer of something shiny on it, proudly announcing “Lardo!” It was, in a word, fabulous — pure flavor, almost indescribable. We found out later how it’s made. The cut is like bacon, without the meat — just pure pork fat. It’s coated with a mixture of salt and spices and cured in large marble jars. Once this is done (over the course of weeks), the lardo is cut into paper thin slices. For our appetizer, the bread was toasted and the lardo laid across it, whereupon it melted just from the heat of the toasted bread, almost disappearing, leaving only the flavor behind.
Pure fat, no trans fats. It should be its own food group.
Bombadil
And it’s not just due to “health police” — Dunkin’ donuts stopped making the crullers (replacing them with “French sticks”, for crissakes) and even their signature Dunkin’ Donuts (the ones with the little handle) because they had to be made on-site. Now all the donuts are made at a plant and shipped to the stores where they’re baked. I miss those crullers, man.
Pb
…and then there’s plain ol’ fatback…
orogeny
That’s my point … the only way a smoking ban works is if you take away peoples’ right to choose. If you gave people the option, the smoking bars would be packed as usual and the non-smoking bars would have a very limited clientele. Take away the choice, and the smokers show up anyway, they just don’t have as good a time as they used to. If there was really a pent-up demand for non-smoking bars, don’t you think there would have been plenty of them already in existence? (Restaurants are a different story…even a lot of smokers prefer a restaurant without smoke.)
That’s what will eventually happen with things like trans-fats. In order to force everyone to abide by the health Nazi’s rules for living, the option to partake of them must be taken away.
McDonalds used beef tallow for their fries until soemtime in the late 80’s when pressure from the health nuts and the vegans led them to switch to vegetable oil. The fries were healthier, but they lost a lot of flavor.
jill
There is so much more to be stunned about in this country. Might I suggest: legalizing torture, pre-emptive war, politicizing science, voting machine problems, I could go on and on before I care about trans-fats criminalization.
Bombadil
Party poop.
capelza
jill..I agree, but to me, this kind of thinking is part of the package. Don’t think for yourselves,we’ll do it for you! We’ll keep you safe..whether it’s from terrorists or tater tots!
Bombadil
Oh, by the way, John — I nominate this post for “Post Title of the Week”.
Kirk Spencer
half-digressing…
My bottom-line argument on the whole restriction thing was:
If it’s swinging your fist and punching your own nose, more power to you. If swinging your fist was punching MY nose, I’m gonna stop you.
Cigarette smoking in restaurants falls into the latter category. If you smoke at a table near mine, my throat gets scratchy, my nose plugs and my eyes water — along with approximately 2/3 of all the people in the same situation.
I’m mixed about the trans-fat denial position. One point is that the evidence that it’s harmful is marginal. (Butter is a good example of the ‘evils’ being erroneous – or at least wildly overstated.) Another point is that any harm is solely to the eater – not the cook, not the waiter, not the other diners. On the other hand, we generally accept that the government’s right to prevent the use of of ethylene glycol in dessert sauces (antifreeze) even though it’s allegedly quite tasty.
I just don’t yet know enough.
ThymeZone
Yes, the In-n-Out Burger is in a fast food class by itself.
Nothing compares to it. We go ten miles out of our way here on a weekend to get one for lunch. But that’s a big improvement. We used to have to go all the way over to Ramon Road in Palm Desert which is about a 300 mile round trip. Now we have them just ten minutes away. Life is good.
orogeny
capelza,
You’re exactly right. The war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on tobacco, etc. are all part of the slow, seemingly inexorable encroachment on our individual rights. Drugs are bad, we have to be protected from them so you have to give up your right to privacy…the terrorists are out to get us; we have to torture people in order to protect you. It’s all part of the same process, turning the American people into sheep.
capelza
Like I pointed out above…though the “harm” isn’t immediate, the monetary costs of other people’s health choices does impact people who might live a healthier life. Health insurance costs has a huge impact on a family’s fianances. Perhaps I know this more because we have to pay for it ourselves being self-employed, but the costs are astronomical…which frustrates us to no end…I actually stormed around the house one day telling the hub and the last kid that they’d better break a leg or something so I could get some of the money back1 :P
It’s a real pisser because we rarely, very rarely go to a doctor because we are healthy…but got to have the insurance “just in case”.
Meanwhile the woman I used to work with had her valve replaced, has gotten diabetes from her weight and in general is a ticking timb bomb…we used to pay the same premium. It killed me to watch her slather the sour cream on her hash browns AFTER her heart surgery…
But that said, people should have the right to eat themselves to death, just as people should have the right to smoke (within reason). Here in Oregon it is illegal to smake even in a one person office on the off-chance that some person might walk in. That’s going too far.
orogeny
Problem is, your solution to the problem is to ban boxing.
ThymeZone
Oh yeah, baby. As the man says, Believe. The. Hype.
For all those of you who live far away from In-n-Out Land, all I can say is, you poor sumbitch.
Bombadil
I’d agree with your point if we’re talking about the trans-fat argument, but not on the smoking argument. If a restaurant wants to use trans fats and you don’t want to eat them, you eat something that doesn’t contain trans fats. You aren’t going to be bothered if someone else gets fries. If you want to eat trans fats, fine, you’re punching yourself in the nose. With smoking, though, you’re polluting the air I’m breathing — and thus punching me in the nose. There’s a difference.
John D.
Science Fiction is merely ahead of its time.
Lipidleggin’, F. Paul Wilson, 1978.
I read that story over 20 years ago. I’d rather we get flying cars than nanny states, thanks.
Justin Slotman
Huh. Without clicking the link, I thought the city in the article was Chicago–they’ve been doing a lot of this kind of thing lately.
RSA
Any problem with a restaurant that posts a sign saying, “Smoking allowed in this restaurant”? That is, by analogy to eating something without trans fats, if I didn’t want to smell smoke I’d have to go somewhere else.
SeesThroughIt
Oh yes. The nearest In-n-Out to me used to be at least a good 45 minutes away. But recently, one opened up about 15 minutes away. You better believe I’m in that joint regularly! Few things match the sublime goodness of a double-double.
So these smoking laws…I always thought they were kind of stupid. Leave it up to the individual establishments whether or not they want to ban smoking, ya know?
orogeny
Bombadil,
The boxing analogy is perfectly apt. If two people willingly participate in swinging their fists, with the understanding that they will be exposed to contact and the referee agrees to work the fight even though he might get punched as well, then it is none of your business.
If I own a bar and want to allow smoking within, I should be allowed to do so. If you want me to put a sign on the door saying “Abandon all hope ye who enter” and make any potential employees sign a statement saying they understand the risks associaed with secondhand smoke, that’s fine. Unless someone is standing on the street forcing non-smokers to enter a bar that allows smoking, you have no right to gripe about what goes on within.
Kirk Spencer
Orogeny – huh? Did I say ban all smoking? Nope.
If you’re in your own home, smoke. (Yes, I know the people argue about second-hand smoke and kids. I’m… going to default to saying we have to stay out of that one.)
For the rest, I’m reasonably satisfied with Georgia’s approach. Basically described, the default for is that public enclosed areas are no-smoking unless everyone present agrees otherwise in advance. (It’s not perfect for either side, but it seems to work – and there are loopholes for the places that think or know that the majority of their customers are smokers.)
So your two boxers want to get in the ring and punch away, go for it. The ref in the ring is willfully taking the chance that he might catch a stray punch. The audience is off limits.
orogeny
Does the GA approach ban all smoking in bars?
capelza
Don’t want to turn this into a smoking/antismoking thread…but the point about smoking bars. That is completely valid. Open up non-smoking bars and let the businesses that want to allow smokers do so. It’s choice…the customer can choose.
Like adult movie theatres, they must be clearly marked elsewise some family could accidentally walk in expecting the latest family film. Or should all adult movie theatres be banned because the family wants to be able to walk into any god damned place they feel like?
Kirk Spencer
I’ll add a specific example of loopholes for Georgia in regard to restaurants.
If the owner of the restaurant wants to allow smoking, he can:
1) have a room (enclosed, not separated by a half-wall) that is separately ventilated can be designated for smoking; OR
2) allow adults (age 18+) only.
Bombadil
That analogy works up to a point. If the restaurant uses trans fats, they don’t use them in every dish, so you can go in, order a meal, and still avoid the trans fats completely. Unless the smokers are completely segregated from the non-smokers, though, that isn’t the case — you won’t be able to go in and avoid secondhand smoke. It will still be an issue.
As a non-smoker (and the worst kind — a former-pack-and-a-half-a-day reformed non-smoker), I appreciate (and support) that in my state (Massachusetts), all eating establishments are smoke-free. But, while I prefer to have a drink in a smoke-free environment, I’m less supportive of a ban in bars. Saves me from the temptation, though — I quit over 20 years ago, and still get the craving when I have a drink in my hand.
John D.
Bah, looks like Doing Freedom is down. Here’s Google’s cached copy of Lipidleggin’.
JWeidner
In-n-Out? Go order a 4 x 4, animal style. Consume. Come back and we’ll swap stories.
Great thing about In-n-Out are some of the non-menu specialty requests you can make. They don’t show up on any menu board, but if you know what they are, you can order them.
I don’t recommend regular 4 x 4’s, but even a double double animal style is pretty dang good.
Kirk Spencer
Orogeny – bars are as per restaurants.
For what it’s worth, I’ll explain why I’m rather militant – beyond the fact that my wife’s highly sensitive to cigarette smoke.
I had some encounters with smokers lighting up in areas designated as non-smoking. Because of my wife’s reaction, I asked them to either move or stop smoking. Some did. The majority did not. My militancy began when the person stared at me, got up, put his cigarette out IN MY PLATE, then sat down and lit up a replacement.
Yes, it’s one rude (or rather, especially rude) example. It’s still the cause of anger and action.
Again, and back to the original topic, I am mixed about the trans fats. I note, in favor of relatively hands-off, that a lot of fast food restaurants post the trans-fat content of their meals. A requirement of similar might be enough – *IF* it’s needed at all.
orogeny
If that’s the GA law, it seems perfectly reasonable and I would support it.
I think capelza’s adult movie analogy really hits the mark.
capelza
Portland Oregon…certainly not a smoker’s haven..has seen an increase, a pretty big one..something like 33% last time I looked..in childhood asthma. At the sametime auto emissions have been increasing due to the huge population expansion in the last couple of decades. Now here is something that also needs to be curbed. Anyone who has stood in downtown Portland can literally smeel the stuff in the air. Well us rubes that only get there a few times a year can certainly.
Should automobiles be banned because children are getting sick from it? It’s not feasible. What I didn’t like about the anti=smoking campaign, while right in that smoking is bad for you, is that smokers were an easy and identifible target..a “them”. The larger pollution picture is not nearly as tangible so the “we’ve done something about it..sin no more” folks have a bogeyman…as they drive away spewing invisible exhaust.
Now, as I know it would…bad food is the next on the chopping block. Like bilers, another minority…they have to wear helmets..and yet the biggest dangers on the road usually have 4 doors and a careless driver. Chubby people are the next “tangible” target.
John D.
So, rather than complain to management — who’s rules were being violated — you shifted into favoring laws banning a behavior?
That’s using a nuke to swat a fly.
Krista
That person was just an asshole, then. If it wasn’t cigarettes, it’d be cell phone usage, or loud cursing, or some other form of obnoxiousness. I’m an ex-smoker (this is my 4th anniversary today, actually!), and can’t stand when people smoke next to me, but don’t really agree with a complete ban on smoking in all public places (which is what my province is now considering). It’s kind of pitiful that they’ve removed the smoking rooms from nursing homes around here. If someone lives to a ripe old age, and is stuck in a nursing home, and smoking is the one pleasure they have left, then let them smoke, for chrissakes. If they quit, they might prolong their lives by what…6 months? And what’s the point if they’re made to be miserable that entire time?
I figure, if you want people to be healthier, tax the living hell out of the unhealthy stuff, and put the money towards a health-care system.
capelza
Kirk Spencer…I used to work at a science research center for a university that has a public wing visited daily by school groups. I was in the public wing working with one of these groups. Outside a double glazed stretch of windows and some shrubbery about 20 feet away a smoker was minding his own business, standing outside the back door of his private office (because it was illegal to smoke in that PRIVATE office…fair enough)
One of the kids., about 10 or 11 started banging on the window and shaking his finger at the person who was minding their own business, not inflicting their smoke on anyone. The kid was making nasty faces at the man. It was extremely rude.
I have to say that the vast majority of smokers I know are very courteous about it. Maybe it’s the region I work in, but it does run both ways.
Kirk Spencer
John D.,
I used to go to management when the smokers continued to sit and smoke after I’d asked them to move or stop. I can count the number of times the restaurant management actually came and backed my complaint on Max Cleland’s toes. I got told more than a few times, however, that they couldn’t MAKE the customer stop or move, they could only ask. That includes my complaint about this specific individual.
A rule unenforced is a suggestion. An addiction tends to overwhelm mere suggestions. It became obvious to me that something more than mere suggestion was necessary, or we quit needing to have these suggestions. Since their smoke was causing harm to me and mine, I chose the former route. This particular individual just gave me the underlying gumption to keep pushing.
Please notice, again, that I don’t push for total bans. Your right to punch yourself in the face is unalloyed. You just can’t hit me with your elbow while you’re doing it.
Vlad
Why are people getting all bent out of shape about this? There are lots of oils without trans-fatty acids that make perfectly tasty donuts, and don’t really cost much more money. Prices aren’t going to change appreciably, and the food will taste exactly the same…
John D.
So, work the Free Market — quit going there.
Any time management says “We can’t force them…”, they’re lying. See all those signs that say “Management reserves the right to refuse service”? They aren’t just for show. Violation of health codes by patrons *must* be dealt with.
If a dude put his cigarette out on my plate, I’d be getting a free meal, him removed, and a massive apology, or they’d be getting a Health Department visit.
Hyperion
this reminds me of the best fried potatoes i can recall ever putting in my mouth…in Bassano, Italy in 2000. beef tallow. and yet the italians are on the whole much thinner than we are.
BTW that trip was the first time i was able to identify american tourists strictly on the basis of their body volume…instead of my previous predictor, voice volume.
RSA
Just for clarity, I was saying that if a restaurant has a sign, “Smoking allowed here,” that means, “If you hate smoke, you’ll have to go somewhere else.” The adult movie theater analogy above is a reasonable one.
RSA
Hell, I can’t think of any countries where the natives aren’t on the whole thinner than Americans. Even countries where they smoke more, drink more, and eat fattier food (though not as much).
Bombadil
OK, I’m going to hell, because I just laughed out loud at that.
Bombadil
On our trip, I ate myself into a stupor at nearly every meal, with wine, and we tried out every gelateria we could find. In the ten days we were there, I lost 10 pounds, because I was constantly walking.
Then we got back home, I got into my car, drove to work, sat down, drove home, hit the couch and put all 10 pounds back on.
capelza
SO I was just at The Moderate Voice..there is a timely little blurb about the cost of health insurance over there, but because I am link illiterate here, despite John Cole’s best efforts I’ll simple direct you there from the sidebar here..
Ours isn’t quite that much, but we have a $5K deuctible…so to say what people put in their bodies doesn’t impact all of us is not quite correct.
But here I’m in a quandry, because I don’t want to force my fellow citizens to eat what I think they should, drink or smoke. But damn, can’t we take a little better care of ourselves? I realise that a lot of healthcare costs are stockholder driven as well, but with the decline in smoking, one would think that health care wouldn’t be so expensive..but yet, it is. Could it be because we are the fattest country on earth? Well maybe neck and neck with the other country on this planet that I thought we had the most kinship with, Australia.
Kirk Spencer
Capelza (and others), again I’ll repeat that I am not for a 100% ban, and indeed have stood with smokers against such. Further, I’ll agree that there are rude anti-smokers as well. That said, allow me to reiterate my critical point: Cigarette smoke harms people. It causes immediate cold- or allergy-like symptoms in (depending on study) 1/3 to 2/3 of people in the vicinity. It probably (some tobacco sponsored studies disagree) increases the likelihood of developing long-term chronic ailments that include emphysema and lung cancer. Because of this, if you try to hurt me I will work to have you stop. I will not start at the top of the scale of responses but will instead work from the least that’s likely to succeed (verbal requests, and then only where social norms or apparent rules support me) and revert to higher levels of action only when the lesser are proven ineffective.
John D.
Hah. Quite simply, Hah. A restaurant in most states will not be shut down in that case – and certainly not prior to 1995. A health violation must be properly documented for there to be any impact. Now looking back I MIGHT have been able to get the man charged with assault. At the time, however, the only way I could prevent myself from trying to beat the crap out of him was to complain to management. When that failed, I paid the bill and left. My letter to the ownership got a response that boiled down to, “We’re sorry you feel that way. Too bad.” Free meal? yeah, maybe, if it’d been a chain. Not from that family-owned restaurant, though. Not in the early 1990s.
As to the free market solution…
The problem with that is that the owners have to recognize the quantity of business they are losing by my (and those of like mind’s) absence. It was – and to some extent still is – the commonly accepted wisdom that a restaurant that chooses to be 100% non-smoking will go out of business from lack of customers. And when it’s one or two restaurants in a region (city, county, etc) that do this, that was indeed the experience. There have been some studies (sociological and economic) on this phenomenon, because when the no-smoking rule is made region-wide the result is contrary to that experience. As noted above, most restaurants suffer briefly, but then return to and even exceed prior attendance. (on average, not on specific). The studies are attempting to determine WHY this is so – afaik nothing definitive has been determined, though there are some solid probable causes.)
So, social pressure and free market pressure won’t stop a significant minority (and yes, I know it’s not the majority, just an estimated 30% of smokers) from ‘hitting me while swinging their fists’. I could choose, of course, to be a doormat – to allow my choices and actions to be constrained and dictated by the addiction of a minority of the population. I refuse.
For what it’s worth, the whole battle has taught me a few interesting things. One very important thing is the consequence of false compromises. The “no smoking” zones in restaurants were supposed to be a compromise – smokers and non-smokers sharing a restaurant, smokers agreeing to stay in one area and non-smokers tolerating the occasional incidental drift of smoke out of that area. The compromise was constantly violated and enforcement was functionally non-existant. Eventually, the failure of non-violating smokers and those responsible for enforcement to constrain the violators led the other side to revolt. I am absolutely certain that if management had usually supported my requests to stop or move these smokers, I’d have not been so adamant in seeing that stronger measures were used. I note that the current false compromises in the political arena appear to be ready to bear similar fruit. Turning a blind eye to abuses eventually leads to being blindsided.
Bombadil
I understood what you meant. But I’d question with the adult movie theater analogy as well. One goes to the adult theater to view the porn (and anyone who just walks into a theater and buys tickets to the movie for their family without knowing that its a porn theater deserves what they get). You go to the restaurant to eat, not to breathe in your neighbor’s second-hand smoke. The adult theater’s primary purpose is to show porn. The restaurant’s primary purpose is not to be a place for people to smoke.
We can still argue whether a restaurant should be forced to ban smoking, but I don’t think the porn theater argument is valid.
capelza
I wasn’t talking about restaurants at all..I expressly was talking about bars.
RSA
Ah, I now see a justification for distinguishing bars from restaurants: for a lot of people, smoking and drinking may be inseparable.
I won’t press the issue. I’m not sure that smoking isn’t sui generis: I can’t offhand think of any strongly analogous public activities that people engage in that passively put others at risk.
Bombadil
Capelza, point taken, but my response was to RSA’s post, which expressly mentioned restaurants.
As I said earlier, I agree with the smoking ban in restaurants; I also like not having to deal with smoke in bars, but would not raise a fuss if the law here was changed to allow smoking there. I suspect that, if the law was changed, there would be a number of bars in larger cities that would declare themselves smoke-free. Probably not in smaller markets, though.
Bombadil
Voting Republican?
(And no, I’m not suggesting we ban it, just recommending against it!)
RSA
You bastard, you just raised my blood pressure!
RSA
:-)
Chefrad
Let them eat switch grass.
Bombadil
Including genetically engineered switch grass?