An inept Kansas smoking analogy


From last March.

In today’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita busybody Charlie Claycomb makes another inept analogy in an attempt to press his anti-smoking agenda statewide.

A while back he tried to compare a smoking section in a restaurant with a urinating section in a swimming pool. This is ridiculous to the extreme, as I show in the post It’s not the same as pee in the swimming pool.

Now in today’s letter in the Eagle, Claycomb says that although the United States Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, since that right is heavily regulated, government has license to regulate smoking, as smoking isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution.

Here’s why this is another ridiculous analogy (without conceding whether the regulations on arms are justified or effective): A person in, say, a bar that’s carrying a gun can’t be detected as you enter the bar. You just can’t tell upon entering an establishment whether someone has a concealed gun and intends to cause harm to patrons. This is the case even if there’s a law prohibiting carrying guns into bars, and even if the bar has a “no guns” sign.

But you sure can tell if people are smoking.

Smoking ban supporters might argue that since there may be smoking in some establishments, my rights are being infringed since I can’t patronize those places without exposing myself to harmful smoke.

That’s true, except about rights being violated. There’s definitely no right in the Constitution to be able to go everywhere you want on your own terms.

“Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” — John Stuart Mill

“Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.” — Milton Friedman


4 responses to “An inept Kansas smoking analogy”

  1. harleyrider1978


    This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 94% water vapor and air… lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

    According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

    They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

    They concluded that:

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

  2. harleyrider1978

    What did you say, Its 10s of thousands of times dilluted below permissable levels………………….

  3. Dismal Scientist

    The main point comes down to property rights. If you do not like second hand smoke do not go to a bar, club or restaurant that allows smoking! Plain and simple.

  4. KipSchroeder

    Loved the quotes by Mill and Friedman and completely agree with Dismal Scientist’s assessment. It would be a different story if they wanted to smoke in my house.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.