Property Rights: Liberty cannot be sacrificed in the name of public health

Ban the ban
Let the market decide

August 7, 2006
By Phillip Newswanger
Dear City Council member Theresa Whibley:

Your proposed ban on smoking in Norfolk’s eateries is a bad idea.

Let the market, not government, decide these issues. This is economics 101.

In fact, some downtown Norfolk restaurants have adopted a no smoking policy and advertise that they are smoke-free.

If restaurants are losing patrons to smoke-free restaurants, they will go smoke-free to compete. If they allow smoking, they will go out of business.

Forget the ban. Let the market decide the winners and losers.

Focus on real issues instead.

Norfolk has a poverty rate of nearly 20 percent, the highest in the region. More children live in poverty than in any other Hampton Roads city.

Fix that instead.

The children of children are getting killed in the projects. Children are on the street with nothing to do and nowhere to go.

Fix that.

While you’re at it, teach these children how to read and write. Teach them what they need so they can graduate from high school. Give them the skills to get a job.

While you’re at it, do something with the 650 homeless individuals in this city who are multiplying like flies. Help them find jobs, skills, training. Get them back in society. A loft in Park Place is nice, but it doesn’t solve the root of the problem.

Fix that.

Norfolk has the highest recidivism rate among ex-felons in the state. More ex-felons return to Norfolk after incarceration than any other Virginia city. If they can’t find a job because no one will hire them, they will resort to their old habits and the cycle of crime will be perpetuated.

Fix that.

Our streets, our sewers and our sidewalks are deteriorating.

Fix that and while you’re at it, do something about the thousands of Norfolk residents who live in public housing.

Hampton Boulevard is like a NASCAR track in the morning and afternoon.

Do something about it.

Our streets and tunnels are clogged. Our highways are a mess.

Do something about it.

Houses are crumbling because of absentee landlords.

Do something about it.

And while you’re at it, trim the excess fat from our city government. Too much money is spent on frivolous projects, including a horde of consultants who don’t live, work or play in this city, but who tell us how to design our city with cookie-cutter solutions.

Fix that instead.

Certain neighborhoods are cesspools of crime and drugs.

Fix that instead.

Find solutions, not sound bites, as you begin your stint as a City Council member. And maybe, just maybe, you will rise above the mediocrity of ward politics.

Just so you know, those baby strollers that parents run behind on city streets put children in danger. Ban them instead. Or pass an ordinance requiring parents to apply for a permit to operate one of these contraptions on city streets. Just like golf carts.

Granted, you’re new on Council and many of these problems existed before you were elected. Let’s hope you can persuade your peers to fix what needs to be fixed.

Just for the record, I am a smoker and a lowbrow patron of those eateries.
IB staff writer Philip Newswanger covers maritime, transportation and commercial real estate. He can be reached by calling 222-5355 or e-mail philip.newswanger@pilotonline.com.

---

July 22, 2006
By Kerry Dougherty

Paging Dr. Whibley. You’re wanted in the Reality Room. Stat!

In case you missed Friday’s front-page story, novice Councilwoman Theresa Whibley – a physician – wants Norfolk to be the first in the commonwealth to completely overstep its bounds and outlaw smoking in restaurants.

Why? Because second hand smoke is unhealthful and because she and others don’t like eating in establishments that have smoking sections. What a coincidence – neither do I.

Here’s a thought: If you don’t want smoke with your meal, don’t patronize restaurants that still allow smoking.

There, problem solved.

Unfortunately, that sort of free-market approach never seems to satisfy those who believe every wrong can be righted by a law.

Besides, according to The Pilot, Whibley says that if Norfolk passes a sweeping smoking ban, it could draw diners to town.

“We could say, ‘Come to Norfolk, where you can eat in a smoke-free environment,’ ” the well-meaning council member said.

Diners already can eat in smoke-free environments in Norfolk. There are lots of no-smoking restaurants. And they’re not hard to find.

Regino’s, on East Little Creek Road, for example. Gregory Mazarakis Jr. told the paper that going smoke-free has been a boon for his family-owned business.

“For every person who comes in and leaves because there is no smoking, we gain 100 customers.”

If that’s true, who needs a law?

My favorite eatery is Norfolk’s Doumar’s Cones and Barbecue. Yup, nothing like a hotdog washed down by a limeade in the comfort of my nonsmoking car.

For those who prefer haute cuisine, Todd Jurich’s Bistro is another smoke-free restaurant in Norfolk, although diners can fire ’em up at the outdoor tables.

Jurich, a former smoker, abolished smoking in his restaurant about a year ago. He initially lost a few happy-hour patrons, he said, but they’re back. He’s getting ready to open a restaurant at the Beach and that, too, will be smokeless.

“All restaurants are going in that direction,” Jurich said.

Restaurateurs know how to add and subtract.

Last time I checked, the percentage of American adult smokers had dropped to about 21.5 percent. That means 78 percent of us don’t light up.

It doesn’t take an MBA – or an M D – to figure out that smoke-free restaurants are the way to go.

This issue came up last winter when over weening nanny government types in Richmond attempted to ban smoking almost everywhere in Virginia.

Their effort to monkey with the free market failed. So will Whibley’s. Even she seems to know that.

“I’m not naive,” the well-meaning City Council member told me Friday.

Whibley said that by floating the notion of a smoking ban, she hopes to at least “get the dialogue going.”

Oh, the dialogue’s going, all right.

Isn’t it nice to know that our elected officials worry so much about us?

Reach Kerry at (757) 446-2306or kerry.dougherty@cox.net.

---

Liberty cannot be sacrificed in the name of public health
April 21st, 2006
Michael Hugman, a regular columnist

You’re awakened to the sound of furious pounding on your door.

“This is the police, permission to enter!”

The voice seems loud enough to wake the neighborhood. You look at your alarm clock – 6:15 A.M. – and you wonder what on earth is going on. You stumble towards the door and open it, only to be greeted by a dozen black-garbed men with submachine guns. They quickly set you aside and begin rummaging through everything you own. One of the officers spots several cigarette butts in an ashtray on your kitchen table, and places them in a plastic bag labeled “Evidence.” Before you know it, you’re headed to the local police station in handcuffs. The following day, the police blotter in the local newspaper reads, “local citizen charged with class 1 misdemeanor for possession of tobacco.”

Does that situation sound too ridiculous to ever happen? It should. But think about it: the police already conduct raids that are just like the one I described. Except they’re for marijuana. Actually, I witnessed one while I was on my way to the bus stop one morning a couple months ago.

Now consider the fact that cigarettes are more harmful than marijuana, and considerably more addictive. Also consider the fact we seem to be experiencing the beginning of a war on tobacco, with bans on smoking in public places cropping up everywhere. Does the situation I described seem so farfetched now? I really see it happening 10 or 20 years into the future, if current trends continue.

Of course, I’m not saying that all the people who want to ban smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces actually want to ban smoking entirely. But the problem is that the ban on smoking in those so-called “public” places (they’re actually private property) is a slippery slope towards a total ban. That is because the people arguing against smoking in those places are arguing as if saving lives is more important than anything else – including freedom.

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, then we’d have to outlaw alcohol (kills 80,000 Americans per year), obesity (300,000 per year) and finally, tobacco (400,000 per year).

I’m not sure if I believe the numbers are actually that high, but regardless, people die because of those things. If life was the overriding value, then we’d have to round up all drinkers, the obese and smokers, put them in camps, and “reeducate” them so that they would live healthier lifestyles.

I don’t really think we want that. What we need to do instead is recognize that a wide range of things are valuable, including life, freedom, and happiness. And we also need to recognize that we are not omniscient, and our values aren’t necessarily the same as other people’s values. Therefore, we shouldn’t act like we’re doing “good” by imposing one value on everyone.

Rather, we should let people make their own value judgments as much as possible. If someone judges that smoking is more valuable than avoiding health problems down the road, then we shouldn’t interfere if we respect him or her as an autonomous person. The freedom to choose may very well result in people choosing dangerous activities that eventually kill them. So be it.

When you hear a statistic like “Tobacco kills 400,000 Americans per year,” remember that tobacco isn’t jumping out of bushes and killing people that walk by at night. People choose to smoke tobacco, and they choose to accept the health risk (which is well known by now). You may try to convince these people to change, but you may not force them to change.

Unfortunately, many of the people involved in government and public health haven’t realized that yet. Our current Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, has stated that he supports a ban of all tobacco products. Also, about 25 states have some sort of ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, workplaces or other “public” areas. A number of public health groups are working right now to make Virginia a “smoke-free” state.

A lot of what is happening is due this claim: smoking doesn’t just kill smokers but also other people with second hand smoke. That claim sounds so plausible that even I used to believe it. The problem is that it’s unproven. You can cite all the studies you want that “show” that SHS kills, and I can tell you why they have problems. The most fundamental problem with them is that most claim a relative risk from SHS of about 1.3.

A relative risk of 1.3, in theory, means that living with a smoker all your life increases your risk of getting cancer by about 30%. In reality though, a relative risk below about 2 or 3 doesn’t mean anything at all. According to the National Cancer Institute, “In epidemiological research, relative risks of less than 2.0 are considered too small and difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”

In addition, the 1.3 is for people who live with a smoker all their lives. For people who are exposed to a little smoke in restaurants and bars on weekends, I think we can safely assume that the increase in risk of getting cancer is zero. SHS, therefore, is a non-issue.

We need to reverse this disturbing trend towards banning tobacco. Regardless of whether you smoke or not (I don’t), you should still care about preserving freedom from misguided people. However good their intentions may be.
Read

On 15 Decmber 2005, the Norfolk Airport Authority decided to ban all smoking from the airport including the self-contained, ventilated smoking lounges. This policy went into effect, much to the surprise of air travelers, on 1 January 2006.

Efforts to get the smoking lounges re-opened in the airport, inlcuding numerous emails to the Authority, a personal appearance at their Board meeting, and formal letters only resulted in their emphatic justification of their decision. Their main logic in banning smoking is the effect of second-hand smoke. What they fail to realize is that the self-contained smoking lounges have no second-hand smoke effects by their very nature. When consulted as to whom the Authority answers to (in an attempt to escalate the issue), the Authority responded with a letter form their lawyer which states that they are appointed, but self-supervised.

In summary, the Authority is making cavellier decisions wihtout regard to logic and do not seem to care who complains because they feel that they are above all influence.

The Virginia State motto is certainly appropriate here….Sic Semper Tyrannis.