Alcohol: Fumes, Fun, Sunshine and Smoke

Is It Time To Ban Alcohol Too?
By Ryan Evans
We made the mistake of trying to impose a national prohibition against alcoholic beverage once already in our history. However, we seem to be doomed to continually repeat our mistakes over and over since our lawmakers seem to be cursed with a curious inability to learn from history, so maybe it’s time to try this failed policy again. Who knows, maybe it could work this time around. Heck, spread enough disinformation and I bet we could push for a prohibition on drinking tap water too.
So why on earth would I propose such a silly thing as banning alcohol? Well, to be honest it’s not any more silly than smoking bans. In fact, if you want to look at the facts, banning alcohol would actually make more sense than smoking… But since when do facts mean anything these days? Popular opinion is clearly much more powerful than reality.
I have been looking through all of the various rationales for smoking bans and have recently started a one-man campaign against Wisconsin challenging them on their premise for trying to push a smoking ban on us. Why? Because the facts just don’t add up. It would seem that the prevailing underlying argument is simply dislike of smokers; however those personal feelings are masked behind all sorts of “public health” and economic claims. Along with challenging these claims, I decided to do some research of my own – not on smoke, but instead on alcohol.
Read More

---

Fumes, Fun, Sunshine and Smoke

April 26, 2007
Michael J. McFadden

Antismokers like to say, ‘There is no known safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.’ They ignore the fact that the same is true for the Class A Carcinogens alcohol and sunshine, both also having “no known safe levels”.

Sunshine? Is it really that bad? Well, the UN claims 60,000 people die annually from its cancerous effects. Even one quick peek out your window may kill you… if we use the Surgeon General’s smoke exposure standards.

Antismokers might laugh and say ‘Well, there’s no avoiding sunlight, but you CAN avoid smoke by having bans.’ They forget smoking bans are passed primarily to ‘protect the workers’ and there are many workers forced to serve self-centered Sunners desiring lunches on restaurant patios. Why should those workers be ‘the only ones forced to work in a carcinogenic environment?’ Should patio dining be outlawed? After all, it’s no more necessary to the act of eating than smoking is to the act of drinking.

Speaking of drinking… Antismokers like to say ‘You’re not forcing others to drink!’, but you certainly are forcing a carcinogen on them. The actual Class A components of a cigarette’s smoke mass only .0005 grams. A standard martini puts out roughly one full gram of alcohol vapor per hour: as much Class A Carcinogen as 2,000 cigarettes!

See for yourself: pour a good jigger (48 grams) of grain alcohol into a martini glass. Two days later it will be gone. Where did it go? Well, unless your kittycat is a closet tippler, all that nice juicy carcinogen bubbled straight into the air inhaled by you and your family: almost 100,000 cigarettes?€™ worth.

Applying the same ‘zero-tolerance’ rules to alcohol as extremists demand for smoke would force us to ban alcohol from restaurants ‘where people are forced to work.’ Alcoholics could be told ‘just step outside for a moment’ between courses to grab a few quick gulps of wine.

It is not just sunshine and martinis though: think about the deadly popcorn fumes! Recent research indicates that workers exposed to that delicious buttery aroma can lose up to 80% of their lung capacity to bronchiolitis obliterans, a condition that literally obliterates the bronchioles — the lungs’ tiniest airways.

If ‘first hand exposure’ is that deadly, what about the ‘secondhand exposure’ you and your children get at the movies or while munching microwave popcorn on the couch? Picture hundreds of TV ads showing babies in the womb being force-fed butter flavored popcorn while their tiny computer-animated lungs slowly wither and die. Picture parents being denied custody of their children or losing their jobs because they are ‘popcorn-eaters’.

The only thing unique about the ‘deadliness’ of secondary tobacco smoke is that a powerful lobby has focused our attention on it and magnified our fears of it. Having a patio lunch may actually be more dangerous than being inside with the smokers. Working in a poorly ventilated non-smoking alcohol-friendly restaurant may be deadlier than working in a well-ventilated smoking casino!

The hysteria surrounding secondary smoke is deliberately created to pressure smokers to quit, no more, no less. It’s a hysteria fed by media outlets posing as good corporate citizens while making extra bucks from scary headlines. And it’s a hysteria that has ruined the lives and livelihoods of many innocent people.

Reasonable restrictions on smoking are fine. Voluntary business choices to ban smoking are also fine. But government-mandated universal smoking bans and the social disruption attending them are most definitely not fine. They are not American, and they hurt our lives and our society far more than they help it.