Around the Web

• Pat Buchanan actually writes something worth reading (even if Stephen Moore wrote much the same column only a few weeks ago).

• An anti-tobacco activist says New York City's health czar, Dr. Thomas Frieden, manipulates the science of second-hand smoke in the tradition of the infamous Tobacco Institute.

• Robert Gates continues his audition for the next Clinton Administration.

• The Center for Consumer Freedom's Rick Berman reports: "During the same time that health officials have placed increasing emphasis on obesity rates, the incidence of eating disorders has nearly tripled."

• A Johns Hopkins professor says claims of an obesity epidemic are "wildly exaggerated" and hurt children.

• A British editorial says a proposed regulation that will "warn" parents of obese "seem to assume a level of stupidity among the general public." It also has an intriguing suggestion for remedying obesity: "eat less and exercise more."

(hat tip to my pops & the Center for Consumer Freedom)

Selective Health Paternalism

From today's Best of the Web:

The Associated Press reports, "[San Francisco] health officials took steps Thursday toward opening the nation's first legal safe-injection room, where addicts could shoot up heroin, cocaine and other drugs under the supervision of nurses."

Meanwhile in Portland, Maine, the AP reports that "school officials on Thursday defended a decision to allow children as young as 11 to obtain birth-control pills at a middle-school health center."

In both San Francisco and Portland, however, smoking in bars is strictly prohibited. It's bad for your health, after all.

Meanwhile, in other health news:

-- Hillary Clinton makes fun of Americans for being fat.

-- New York City's Health Department will be visiting homes in Harlem to ensure nobody is smoking around children.

American Enemies

Both John Edwards and Mike Huckabee are calling for a national ban on smoking in public places.

Once upon a time, proposing such specific regulation of individual behavior at the federal level would be insane. No longer. Today, the conversation over what the government has the right to decide on behalf of its constituents is undergoing a titanic shift, all in the name of "public health."

This isn't working out so well for anyone who prizes civil liberty. For a country with an identity inseparable from its its open society, "public-health" legislation represents one of the greatest threats after terrorism. (And unlike wiretapping phone calls to terrorists, "health" bans actually impact people's lives.)

Yes, many people will happily sacrifice liberty for some perceived public good. But they'd be remiss to neglect considering that this country hasn't achieved its many successes owing to thoughtful government intervention into its citizens' lives.

Picture of the Day

Fact of the Day: It's possible to smoke, drink AND eat trans fats, while still living a long, healthy, happy life. One-hundred-year-old Winnie Langley is case in point.

(Hat tip to Karol)

Heroin, OK; Tobacoo? Not So Much

Reuters reports from Kabul:

Afghanistan may be the world's largest producer of heroin, but the government has taken the first step towards to a ban on smoking in public places.

Local media said on Tuesday that the council of ministers had ordered a campaign through the media and mosques to inform the public that smoking in educational institutions, hospitals and government offices has been outlawed.

The ban will be widened later to cover hotels and restaurants.

The reports did not say how the government would monitor the ban or what penalties there might be for violators.

There are no official figures on the number of smokers among Afghanistan's 25 million people, but unscientific observation and questioning by Reuters correspondents suggest around half the men have smoked at some point or another.

Afghans say there are very few women smokers.

War-torn Afghanistan produces over 90 percent of the world's heroin and despite the government's repeated efforts, backed by force and tens of millions of dollars from donor countries, drugs cultivation and consumption is rising each year.

(Hat tip: Karol)

It Is Done

New Hampshire casts away freedom, embraces nanny-tyranny. The Boston Globe reports:

CONCORD, N.H. -- Governor John Lynch signed a law yesterday banning smoking in New Hampshire's bars and restaurants.

"The science is clear -- secondhand smoke poses a dangerous health risk, and that is why this new law is so important," Lynch said.

Actually, the science is ambiguous at best. If it's as clear as Gov. Lynch says, he should have no problem producing a list of all the New Hampshirites who've died from second-hand smoke. Still, this point is irrevelant. As the governor of a state bearing the motto "Live Free or Die" should know, if people want to work and patronize a bar that allows smoking -- even if it compromises their long-term health -- that is their choice.

But as with smoking bans everywhere, this bill concerns itself not with the interests of individuals, but politicians.

Opponents argued for education instead. They said restaurant and bar owners should decide when or whether to ban smoking, not the state.

They tried unsuccessfully to carve out an exception for "fully enclosed" smoking rooms in some businesses. The rooms would have been required to have separate ventilation systems, and employees would have been able to choose whether to enter them.

But ban supporters said allowing smoking rooms would make it difficult for workers to say no to their employers. They said the rooms would be bad for smokers and their children and for anyone seated near their doors.

Opponents could have argued for allowing smoking only so long as it is done within giant plastic bubbles. Ban proponents would have responded that children exposed to the sight of people smoking in giant plastic bubbles would think it's cool, and that we need to think first and foremost about The Children.

Politicians pushing bans in the name of public health care only about the self-satisfaction received from imposing their life choices on all those they control. Perhaps it's time for New Hampshirites to die, since they're certainly not living free. Or, at least, change their license plates.

The $25 Cigarette

New York Post columnist Steve Dunleavy, now pushing 80, is still being carded for a pack of smokes:

May 30, 2007 -- IT may not make the Guinness Book of Records, but I believe I paid the highest price in the world to smoke a single cigarette - $25, to be exact.

Up front, I have to say I deplore the evil habit of smoking. But there are so many souls out there, enslaved to the sinister cigarette, they will understand.

Now, back to the exorbitant price I paid for my sin of smoking.

I recently got my bill from a very charming boutique hotel in downtown L.A. called the Hilton Checkers.

On the 21st line of charges was the notation: "Smoking in the room: $200."

Yes, I had been told it was a nonsmoking hotel, but like most desperadoes in the grip of nicotine, I've gotten away with it before in nonsmoking rooms. (Wrong, I know.)

Over a period of four nights, I smoked two cigarettes a night, defying the prohibition. Total, eight cigarettes. Hence, my extra charge of $200 amounted to $25 a cigarette.

Listen, I'm not whining. I broke the announced rules, and I'll swallow (or inhale) the fine.

Back home now. For me it's an hour trip on the Long Island Rail Road to work. I stop at a Hudson News in Penn Station. Marlboro Lights, I ask, and this very sweet, polite young lady asks: "Can I see your ID?"

Digging through a thick wallet can be exhausting, so I leave the newsstand on the east side of the concourse and find another, on the west side. Again, politely, I'm asked, "Can I see your ID?"

I go upstairs to the Amtrak concourse, again request my fix, and again I'm asked for ID.

I finally produce a NYPD-issued press card, and I think the clerk was intimidated (something I hoped would happen), and she sold me a pack of smokes, although the press card did not state my birthdate.

Here I am, with more lines on my face than the San Andreas fault. I'm racing into my eighth decade seven months away, and these lovely ladies want to card me.

All right, I surrender on all counts. They've banned smoking at bars, hit us with giant taxes, but why declare war on us poor, wayward souls?

Hello, I'm Tom Elliott, and I Smoke While Driving

I have a confession. Sometimes, when I'm all alone, when I'm relaxing in the privacy of my car, when I'm at one with myself and the open road, I smoke a cigarette. I enjoy it. I find it helps train the mind. When it's been a long trip and I'm starting to fade, nicotine reliably refocuses to the task at hand. Cigarettes, in my mind, help make the trip safer. Not only by boosting energy, but by bringing a sense of pleasure to driving. While others react frantically to an onset of traffic, cutting others off in road-rage inspired mania, I'll reach for a Camel Light, turn up the music, and relax.

So lucky for me, then, that this seemingly personal recreation is now being targeted by the health fanatics of the world. The Guardian reports on an effort to ban Smoking While Driving in Britain:

Britain's senior road safety campaigners are calling for a ban on smoking while driving, in an attempt to cut the number of crashes.

The Department of Health said last night that it would seriously consider a ban, which is also being looked at in Germany, Australia and America. The move was backed by anti-smoking campaigners but drew criticism from others as an attack on personal freedom. From 1 July, England will join the rest of the UK by introducing a ban on smoking in enclosed public places and at work.

How is Smoking While Driving dangerous?

The association claims that drivers are in danger when they take their hands off the wheel to find, light and smoke cigarettes, and are particularly at risk if a lit cigarette or ash falls in the car or is blown back through the window. The organisation, which represents 180 of Britain's 200 local roads authorities, fears that once people who drive are stopped from lighting up in other places from 1 July, they will smoke more while in their own cars.

The Guardian goes on to helpfully note that "Last year there were 3,201 deaths on Britain's roads." How many of these deaths were caused by Smoking While Driving is unclear. I'd guess somewhere near zero. Sure, smoking can be distracting -- though I somehow doubt I'm the only one who's able to retrieve a cigarette, use the car lighter, push the window-down button, all without taking my eyes off the road. The reality is that Smoking While Driving can be perfectly safe.

A spokesman for the association, Simon Ettinghausen, said: "In this country, we're libertarians, we like to give people freedoms, but if you are distracted unfortunately your freedom to do these things can affect other people's lives."

We like to give people freedoms. Ettinghausen's high opinion of himself notwithstanding, public officials don't "give people freedoms." People are born free. It is only upon first confronting government, with its monopoly hold on coercive power, that an individual's naturally-endowed liberty is curtailed.

Universally limiting liberty should only be done under the most dire of circumstances. The apparently empirically baseless notion that banning Smoking While Driving enhances safety is anything but.

(H/t: Karol)

Quote of the Day

"I can only hope this means that the MPAA will strip such films as 'Casablanca' . . . of their G ratings and relabel them for what they were: insidious works of prosmoking propaganda that led to millions of . . . deaths." -- Christopher Buckley, author of "Thank You for Smoking," on the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to factor smoking into its movie ratings.

More on this, incidentally, to come.

Empire State Smokeasies

Since New York City banned smoking pretty much everywhere, there remains no shortage of bars that allow patrons to puff away. In upstate New York, though, where a statewide ban prohibits smoking, the Albany Times Union reports bar-owners are a bit less circumspect.

Walk into the music club Positively Fourth Street in Troy on some nights and you'll find several people smoking. Owner and musician Artie Fredette will not admit to allowing smoking, but he will loudly express his disdain for the law. A few years ago, his band, the Lawn Sausages, released a single called "Smoke This, Joe Bruno," in reference to the Senate majority leader.

"We are losing so many rights every day," said Fredette, who has owned a number of bars in Troy over the years. "Now you can't use trans fats in New York City and they are talking about making kids wear helmets while sledding. I'm not selling holy water here."

Fredette has a perfectly reasonable suggestion:

Fredette believes bar owners who want to allow smoking in their establishments should be able to pay for an additional license.

"That way, the state will make all the money they need to make," he said. "And when you hire someone, you should have them sign a waiver to say they know they are working in a smoking environment."

Unlike New York City, where complacency is too-often the rule, upstaters are less enthusiastic to see their liberty extinguished:

Champagne, the Rensselaer environmental health director, said it is often frustrating to investigate neighborhood bars, because employees and clientele are often hostile when it's suggested they put down their smokes. He said one of his inspectors was threatened at a bar this winter and had to call police.

"All the people in there smoke," said Champagne. "At that point, who are we protecting in terms of public health?"

No matter. Whether bar workers like it or not, health cops will "protect" them.

Since the smoking ban went into effect in 2003, "20 percent of our members went out of business," said Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.

"There is no question that it had a short-term severe economic impact on the industry," he said. "The independent operators will adjust, but there are victims of this. Not only the owners, but the employees that lost their jobs."

Workers will "protected" -- even if it comes at the cost of their livelihoods. Such is the moralism of today's health crusade.

Virginia Is (Not) for Smokers

Will Virginia, the state whose flag features a patriot proudly atop a dead tyrant, impose its own tyranny? Leesburg Today reports:

The smoking section may become a relic of the past if the governor gets his way. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) announced yesterday that he is amending a house bill to ban smoking in restaurants. The original text of the bill would require restaurants that permit smoking to post warning signs near their entrances. Current law requires restaurants that seat 50 or more people to have designated smoking and nonsmoking sections.

The governor said in a press release that he is opposed to a complete smoking ban in all public places, but that a ban is needed in restaurants "to protect the health of both patrons and employees."

Seems so.

Smoking Bans' Unintended Consequences

Mom Dukes sends along this story, via Rush Limbaugh:

I have to share this with you. I always check websites during the break here. Some online website called the Dunfermline Press -- it's gotta be some wacko little cult paper in the UK --has a story that has a really great lesson on the unintended consequences of actions taken by those who want to save us from ourselves. In this case, the unintended consequences of the smoking ban. Now, in order for you to appreciate this, and you'll be able to see it because we'll link to it on the website later, but for those of you watching on the Dittocam, I want to zoom in because you have to see this guy. He's the focus of the story.

I'm not going to be able to hold it here steadily while I do the story but just get a look at that guy and keep the memory of that face in your mind as we tell you what the story is about. He is a regular at a pub, and he goes in, and he has his adult beverages or whatever. He has been barred. He has been thrown out of this pub because he breaks wind. The guy cannot stop breaking wind. The guy's name is Stewart Laidlaw, and they say that "his bouts of flatulence" are so over the top that people in the bar "have almost been sick after exposure to the foul smells." (interruption) It won't work to tell 'em it's termites. He's 35 years old. He's furious. The name of the pub is Thirsty Kirsty's, and the guy is livid.

He's the first person to be barred from the pub for breaking wind. Now, the owner says he's been in there for years breaking wind and nobody knew it because you were able to smoke. But now that they've banned smoking, people who have been taking in the guy's wind all these years are for the first time in their lives able to smell it, and so he's been banned and so, see? The unintended consequences of banning smoking has caused this guy public humiliation. People had no clue it was happening because of the cigarette smoke that used to be in there. The title of the story is -- well, we're going to title this on the website -- "Gone with his Wind." (Laughing.) The picture! I wouldn't let the guy in if he smelled like Drakkar Noir cologne, just on the basis of his looks. He's bright-eyed. This guy looks like he's on something from the moment he gets in.

Eat Your Heart Out, Dr. Bloomberg

Remember Jeanne Calment, the world's "longest-living" woman? At the tender age of 122, Calment passed away a lifelong smoker. Now, another centenarian -- Hong Kong's 107-year-old Chan Chi -- is being probed for his secrets to longevity.

To the horror of public-health impresarios everywhere, tobacco abstinence is not among them. Indeed, he still smokes. He did, however, credit the sexually abstinent life he's led since his wife's passing when he was just 30. (Whether this is a reasonable trade-off is, I suspect, in the eye of the withholder.)

These stories, and many more like them, prove that smoking is not prohibitive of a healthy, long life. It's a habit ripe for abuse, no doubt. But smoking bans, and the rhetoric used in backing them, unfailingly abjure even minimal tobacco use as unhealthy. This, quite obviously, is simply not true.

Liberty's Flame Burns On

Even with a smoking ban, it seems you can still smoke at bars in Washington, D.C.

D.C. - 1, NYC - 0

France's Fog of Virtue

From this week's National Review:

A nationwide smoking ban went into effect in France, yet another blow to the stereotype of the French as a nation of louche but intellectual libertines, Jeanne Moreau and Alain Delon lounging in bed discussing Heidegger through a fog of cigarette smoke.

Before the health nuts tighten their grip on La Belle France to a stranglehold, though, we should like to remind everyone that the oldest person who ever lived -- at any rate, whose dates of birth and death are so chronicled that no one could doubt her age -- was a Frenchwoman, Jeanne Calment of Arles, who lives to be 122; and that Calment was -- gasp! -- a lifelong cigarette smoker.

Well, not quite lifelong: She actually quit at age 117, being then blind and too proud to ask people to light her cigarettes for her. After her 118th birthday, however, she resumed the habit. Calment died in 1997, leaving behind a faint whiff of cigarette smoke and a world from which the pleasures of tobacco are being methodically routed. God bless Calment, wherever she is, and may health nuts everywhere -- but especially in France -- choke on their own preening virtue.

San Francisco v. Lawrence

In the 2003 Supreme Court Lawrence v. Texas decision upending every anti-sodomy statute in the country, the nation's highest court ruled that the Constitution's implied right to privacy precluded lawmakers from legislating sexual activity in the confines of a private residence. A debatable proposition, perhaps -- but, now, standing precedent.

More recently, members of a San Francisco suburb City Council unanimously voted to pass the most restrictive smoking ban in the world, effectively outlawing smoking entirely, even in private residences. The only places where smoking would still be allowed are single-family homes that are not part of condos/co-ops/apartment buildings.

Unlike New York and other areas where liberty is taken for granted, Belmont residents revolted, challenging whether these lawmakers should be able to legislate personal behavior in private places.

Which raises an interesting question. If the City Council stands firm, pressing ahead with one of the most brazen subjugations of liberty in modern American history, are these Bay Area legislators prepared to argue before federal courts that the Supreme got it wrong in Lawrence v. Texas?

The Cult of Competitive Moralism

My, how cultish be the politician. Since first observing last November the then-nascent trend of outlawing smoking in cars where "children" are present, the rush with which fellow legislators have fallen over themselves to follow suit has proven tremendously embarrassing -- that is, if thinking for oneself is still considered a virtue. Identical bills have since been proposed in Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Maine, Utah, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.

Now comes Jonah Goldberg to join my anti-children campaign:

Democrats love The Children.

Well, I don’t.

In truth, I do love kids. But it’s the “the” in The Children that’s the problem. It transforms children into a principle for which any violation of limited government is justified.

Read the rest for the interesting back story on whence this campaign of pot-shot moralism derives.

Pelosi's Preference

Remember that C.S. Lewis quote posted here yesterday?

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons-marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning."

Something to bear in mind while reading today's Washington Post story on Nancy Pelosi's decision to ban smoking from the Capitol Building:

Some fresh air blew into the Capitol yesterday, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi banned smoking from the most venerable nicotine haven on the hill -- the Speaker's Lobby outside the entrance to the House floor.

Pelosi, of smoke-free California, is known to detest the tobacco habit. Ever since her ascension as top Democrat with authority over the lobby and most other space in the House, smokers have been bracing for the moment when they'd be ordered to extinguish their butts.

The FunkyPundit is known to detest pompous, self-righteous assholes. But notice he's not manipulating the government to have them banned.

Oh, and by the way, Boehner, you're a pussy:

One of the heaviest smokers, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who is partial to Barclays, was resigned to the new reality yesterday. As majority leader in the last Congress, Boehner ignored calls to ban smoking from the Speaker's Lobby. But now, as minority leader, he has little choice but to abide by Pelosi's wishes and told reporters he was fine with the ban.

Tradition? Who cares about tradition when we've got "scientists":

For generations, the Speaker's Lobby has been the most visible space where smokers gather inside the Capitol. It is an ornate space dotted with fireplaces, leather armchairs and chandeliers. Lawmakers relax there between votes and debates, often meeting with staff members, reporters or the public and huddling in informal groups. Cigarette smokers tended to dominate the daytime hours there; at night, the cigar smokers took over.

Pelosi said she was banning smoking from the area to protect the health of the staff, reporters and public who spend time in the lobby. "Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example," Pelosi said in a statement. "The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over."

No one believes secondhand smoke causes cancer. Not even "scientists." No matter. Tobacco bans are very in these days, and Nancy Pelosi is nothing if not trendy.

Oh, Joy!

In Bangor, Maine, the City Council has passed a law protecting those treacherous little lemmings known as "the children" from ... whom? Ah yes, their parents.

It is now illegal to smoke cigarettes in the privacy of your own car, should any length-of-time-on-Earth challenged persons also be present. Oh, merry mother of maple syrup, what mind-sucking asininity.

Hey Bangor, Maine: Your lame town is an embarrassment to America. Please move it off the premises, perhaps to Canada, where such pat-yourself-on-the-back moralism is more culturally acceptable.

Oh, Snap!

A letter writer responds to a Washington Post editorial:

The Dec. 11 editorial "Stub It Out," in support of smoking bans in bars and restaurants, signals yet another regrettable step in the rise of the nanny-state. What ever happened to freedom of choice? No one is forced to frequent or work in establishments where patrons smoke. If, as The Post asserts, "there is growing evidence that more people will frequent restaurants and bars when a smoking ban is in place," nonsmoking establishments will proliferate. Hospitality workers will thus have choices, as will patrons, as to whether they wish to expose themselves to secondhand smoke.

Furthermore, The Post's analogy to poisoned food is silly and specious. Surely many people frequent a restaurant to enjoy a cigar after a nice dinner or smoke cigarettes while having a few beers. How many people do you know who go to a restaurant of their own volition to be poisoned?

Yes, we get it: Smoke is not good for you. However, it may not be nearly as harmful as the systematic asphyxiation of the right to exercise free will.

KENNETH A. COHEN

Alexandria

Indeed, I'd say it's far worse.