Tennessee's Love Affair With Tobacco Needs To End - And Replies
posted January 6, 2007
thechattanoogan.com

Thanks to Rep. Watson for his hard work and efforts on our behalf in Nashville.

Mr. Watson's letter mentioned his concern regarding Tennessee's rank as one of the most UNhealthy states in the country (47th!), and the need to manage our state's health care costs. Our elected officials should not only pay attention to healthcare spending, but they should also focus on efforts to improve health and to prevent illness and disease. If fewer people become ill, then fewer dollars are spent on medical care to treat preventable illness.

Our legislators should have the courage to follow the lead of 19 other states and deal responsibly with the issue of second hand smoke and its adverse health effects. Citizens who do care about their own health cannot avoid second hand smoke. It collects in the entrance areas to most business establishments, and one must walk the carcinogenic gauntlet to enter and exit the less-than-smoke-free "non smoking" areas.

Tennessee's love affair with tobacco needs to end. Our state has one of the lowest tobacco taxes in the country, and our legislators are again showing great reluctance to pass laws prohibiting smoking in public places. Sadly, many of our state legislators’ minds remain so fogged in a tobacco haze that they remain intent on ensuring that Tennessee forever retains its ranking as one of the three least healthy states in the nation. Ironically, these same law makers care enough about themselves that they did ban smoking in state-owned buildings.

Michael Mallen
michaelmallen@aol.com

* * *

Apparently Mr. Mallen doesn't pay attention to the science.

The so-called "study" that claims to have proved that second hand cigarette smoke causes cancer was based upon a study of only 1,500 people. A dubious sample at best. Those running the study additionally had to reduce their incidence percentages in order to obtain the desired results. The time period over which the study was run was also truncated. A study such as this would have landed someone in jail under other circumstances.

A more credible study of over 39,000 people, and over a period of about 30 years if memory serves correctly, was run in Great Britain and found no significant increase in cancer related to second hand tobacco smoke. A similar study by the World Health Organization obtained similar results. With a larger sample, over a much longer period of time, these studies are probably more accurate.

Is cigarette smoke conducive to various cancers? Who knows. My father smoked three and four packs of cigarettes a day for most of his life not to mention the cigars, pipes, and chew he also did...and died just over a year ago at the age of 78. My mother is 7...well, I better not state anything more than she's no spring chicken...and smokes one after another...Marlboro reds, with the filter broken off. When she feels like it, she hops in the car and heads down the road.

Considering the above, this writer has smoked since conception. Currently I burn only two to three packs a day, and love to see the look on nurses' faces when they take blood pressure and heart rate numbers. The last time these were taken they were 125/80 and 78, textbook, about 10 minutes after field stripping one. Probably not too bad for a pudgy old guy in his mid 50s who gets very little real exercise, thrives on a high fat low fiber diet, and has a 96-year-old grandmother still alive who's lived with smokers all of her life...most of that in and around Detroit, and back in the days when it wasn't unusual for the Rouge River to catch fire. Good genes? Most definitely. There are many others, however, with similar medical histories.

To be sure, many smokers are discourteous, some even obnoxious. Tobacco smoke stinks. Some people are sensitive to the smoke, even allergic. However, we still live in a free nation. If tobacco smoke bothers someone it is incumbent upon them to either not frequent those "smoke filled rooms" or to ask the smoker to please refrain if he has any say in the matter. If I own a business that's open to the public, it's my right to allow smoking in the building. I own the joint. It's my right to set what ever rules that make me happy as long as they don't break any laws just as it's the right of a non-smoker not to allow smoking in an establishment he owns. To demand otherwise is to demand a socialistic state wherein we, as citizens, have no control over our own property.

If Mr. Mallen finds the tobacco smoke stink to be offensive, perhaps he should avoid those places where it occurs. He's free to find another job if he took his current one knowing that smoking is allowed there. He's free to find other restaurants, pubs, places to shop, and any other place he wishes to frequent. But don't use pseudo scientific "studies" and hysterical claims in an effort to force others to abide by his wishes. He has a right to control his own life, not that of others.

If Mr. Mallen were truly concerned about the health of Tennesseans he might focus his energies on more credible health risks like fluoride and mercury in our water, chlorine too, the number of multiple offense drunk drivers on our roads, radon gas sneaking into our buildings and homes from the metamorphic rock surrounding us, alpha radiation bombarding us from all broad leafed vegetation, all the nasty little buggies floating around in our rivers and streams due to the plethora of critters that use them, the things fish do in there too, and the cancer causing radiation bombarding our planet from the sun. Perhaps he could even devote some of his energies to the much more significant problems being caused by the influx of illegal aliens into the state, illegal aliens who bring their own level of toxicity with them...as well as life threatening diseases that had previously been all but wiped out in our society. All of the above are scientifically provable risks. Second hand smoke falls in the same category as cell phones causing brain cancers.

In the mean time, this writer would very much appreciate Mr. Mallen not following me around so my smoke doesn't bother him. There are some times that it's nice to just sit in my car or behind my desk or in a tree or on a park bench, down wind of those who might be sensitive, and smoke a cigarette, or a cigar...and if I could ever get the hang of not swallerin' that 'baccer juice, maybe even standing around chewin' and jawin' with Rep. Watson.

Royce E. Burrage, Jr.
Born to Smoke
RBurrage@bellsouth.net

* * *

The anti-tobacco rant in "Tennessee's Love Affair With Tobacco Needs To End" also needs to end.

The source for that opinion was the ranking for Tennessee in the United Health Foundation's America's Health Ratings 2006.

What is interesting to note is that while the prevalence of smoking in Tennesseans is listed as the highest detriment (ranked 47th of 50), violent crime (49th) and infant mortality (47th) were just as bad or worse - but where's the call to end those?

Ironically enough, the states with worse smoking records than Tennessee faired better overall: Indiana and Kentucky ranked 33rd and 39th, respectively.

Also of note is that Tennessee's obesity rate is also mentioned; this ranking has improved from 47th last year to 42nd this year; not because Tennesseans are slimming down, but because other states are getting fatter. Now what would happen to Tennessee's health rank if all smokers put on a few extra pounds from trying to kick that habit, considering that all three unhealthier states have only slightly higher rates of obesity?

Another main detriment is that of children in poverty (38th). Assuming that the rural areas of Tennessee would be more aware of this particular statistic, what would happen to this rating if the millions and millions of dollars acquired by Tennessee's tobacco farmers was reduced?

The real story is that while second-hand smoke may be inconvenient to some, it is by far not the main health concern that faces the great state of Tennessee. While an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure when it comes to our health, there are far more, and better, ways to promote prevention than simply pointing to tobacco.

Bret Ceren
Ooltewah

* * *

It is far too naive and simplistic to think one can say, "tobacco is bad, therefore we should ban it in private buildings and raise taxes on the purchase of tobacco." There is far more at stake.

First, I own private property and commercial property. I ban the use of any tobacco on my private property and on my commercial property. My employees are not allowed to smoke while in my building. I nevertheless, have a different opinion when wanting to use the force of government to require every private business and private employer in the state to join me in banning smoking. Government could use the same rational to ban not only the sale of French fries and ice-cream, but could also ban allowing commercial and private establishments from allowing people to bring their own unhealthy food onto the premises to eat it. Such a nanny/big brother government approach should frighten all of us. The cure is worse than the second hand smoke.

Next, the chorus to raise taxes on tobacco has a very unhealthy side affect. Tobacco is legal. If it is so unhealthy then ban it and make it illegal. Otherwise, there are serious side affects from deciding to highly tax a legal product. Did you realize that state government makes more money per pack of cigarettes than the tobacco companies? Did you realize that the federal government also makes more money per pack than the tobacco companies. While serving in the state legislature I actually witnessed legislative debates and legislation where government officials wanted to protect and give special preference to the tobacco companies that entered the global lawsuit settlement. The legislators wanted to lean on and punish the other tobacco companies that didn't pay money to the states under the settlement. I have seen the financial planners of the state take into account and depend upon the taxes coming from tobacco.

All of this proves that government is going well beyond a "sin tax" to discourage the spread of tobacco. Government is more addicted to the profits of tobacco than the tobacco companies. This is not unlike government's monopoly on gambling and the lottery. Private gambling is illegal. However, if government does it for the children then gambling is encouraged and even advertised as a good thing. Privately, government officials in the state of Tennessee and other states are now dependent on the hundreds of million of dollars they make on the sale of tobacco. Tobacco may be bad for people. But make no mistake, government is not really trying to discourage its use.

I hate tobacco. I hate being in the same room with a smoker. I hate being in a room the day after a smoker was there. But, my love for freedom and private property rights makes me cringe at the thought of requiring all private buildings and private employers to ban smoking. And, knowing that government actually makes far more money on tobacco than the tobacco companies makes me realize that the government will only raise taxes so much as not to actually decrease overall tobacco tax revenues.

If tobacco is really evil, then ban it. Otherwise, allow it to be a legal product like pornography and cholesterol soaked French fries. But, don't take away our private property rights. And, don't allow government to start profiting from the sale of products. In the long run, that precedent is far more dangerous. Any time something could be harmful then government can take over the industry by demanding a share of the profits in order to allow the industry to continue. Either ban the product or let it compete in the free market.

Chris Clem
Signal Mountain
jchrisclem@comcast.net

* * *

The science on the dangers of smoking is undisputed. It is clear that these dangers do not stop with the person blowing the smoke in the air. The real question is should government regulate smoking in public places?

The answer is found by looking at simple economics. Taxes and health care expenditures are too high. Here is a way to lower both with almost immediate results. Limiting smoking will not only protect non-smokers but will also help smokers by decreasing consumption.

In response to the writer who starts challenging the study and then ends with anecdote, I have my own. I watched a relative who was a life long smoker die at a young age of 68 grasping for breath with emphysema.

You may be surprised that I totally support the right to smoke. I just equally support the rights of non-smokers to not be harmed by second hand smoke. I am lucky to now live in a city that has banned all smoking in public locations including restaurant and bars. The smokers take breaks and go outside for smokes in the proper area and I never have to smell it. The bars and restaurants are all still in business. You cannot imagine how nice it is to have a meal or a drink and not leave stinking like smoke. It is now shocking to return to my hometown of Chattanooga and literally be driven out of the bar because of the smoke.

So I strongly suggest that all city, county and state legislators in Tennessee wake up and adopt these important safety and cost saving measures. All you need to do is look around the country or the world to see that the smoking limits are not a matter of if, but when. Why wait?

Ted S. Biderman
tbiderman@aol.com
Boulder, Co.

* * *

The replies to the editorial entitled Tennessee's Love Affair With Tobacco Needs To End expressed several reservations to a possible smoke-free workplace law in Tennessee. What these replies fail to mention is why such laws have been successfully implemented in more than 21 states, Washington DC, more than 500 local communities, and dozens of countries around the world: this is a public health issue, plain and simple.

Former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona stated upon the release of the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke,” that the debate was over. “The scientific evidence indicates there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke.” Period. All workers deserve the equal right to breathe safe and healthy 100% smoke-free air while on the job.

Tennesseans know that secondhand smoke is a major public health hazard. As a result, they overwhelmingly support smoke-free legislation. In a recent survey of registered voters in Tennessee conducted by the American Cancer Society, 78% felt that workers should not be exposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace

Stripped of the power to pass strong smoke-free workplace legislation at the local level by preemption, Tennesseans must wait for their state legislators to pony up. With more than 50 percent of the United States population now protected by a 100% smoke-free law and hundreds of communities actively working on a smoke-free campaign, according to the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, Tennessee is falling behind the status quo at an exponential rate.

It’s about health. And, it’s about time for Tennessee to join the trend.

Shelby Logsdon
Executive Director
CHART – Campaign for a Healthy and Responsible Tennessee
shelby@tnchart.org

* * *

To those who advocate banning tobacco product use:

I'm not a smoker but used to be. My husband still smokes. I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke any more so he is courteous enough to not smoke around me. Living in the same house this is difficult but we both make concessions to one another in this matter. The same goes for my office at work. We allow smoking in the building but no one smokes in my office or the office of any other non-smoker. We also have air purifiers to filter some of the smoke out of the air.

When I go out, if the restaurant allows smoking I have two choices; either I can have dinner there or I can go somewhere else. It's that simple. I have the same two choices when I go out to any public place. If I'm interacting with a smoker and his or her smoke bothers me I ask them to move it away, which they do because they really don't do it intentionally.

I don't have a right to dictate who can do what and where unless I own the property. Dictate, isn't that the root of "dictator?"

Those people who demand that everyone be just like them are being hypocrites when they try to tell us they're doing it for health reasons. Whose health? They say that they have studies that show harmful affects. Who does those studies? Someone with an agenda? Just because there is a government bureaucrat who says second hand smoke is a hazard doesn't make it so. They have also told us that eggs were not good for us (now shown to be untrue), salt was not good for us because it raises our blood pressure (now discovered it doesn't have as great an affect on blood pressure as originally claimed), coffee is bad for us (it's now been shown that it actually has beneficial health affects like its antioxidant ingredients, assistance in metabolizing sugar), and that some of the drugs that have now been shown to be detrimental to our health were miracle products when introduced (as evidenced by some of those recently pulled from the market). Scientists whose financial well being depends on grants from special interest groups can hardly be considered unbiased, impartial, or objective. I gave up listening to them when I heard someone say that sex wasn't good for us.

Polls - a "statistically accurate" poll can be used to show anything we want and from any perspective we want. I'm no statistician and even I know that. Please spare us from the poll results.

There certainly are places where smoking should not be permitted, where it's a hazard as with any other source of heat or flame. There are places where the property owners don't want to allow smoking. It's their right. It isn't the right of someone who doesn't own the property to demand that the owner not allow smoking.

I have to agree with Mr. Clem, if smoking is so bad for us ban it and make it illegal. Unless you're willing to do so, please spare us from your whining and complaining.

What's next? Chocolate?

Barbara Fields
Stallings, N.C.
BF1217@bellsouth.net

back to news