Printed from NKYchoice.com

Bad Logic: Poor arguments in the debate

These are either the most common or the most outrageous arguments made by those in favor of a smoking ban, and the response from NKY Choice.

Everyone Else Is Doing It

This is honestly the most ridiculous argument of all.

To say that just because some other town has done it, and that's why we should do it, is foolish. You've heard the old adage, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge too". The same principle applies here.

Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it right. And besides, everyone else isn't doing it. Despite what you've been told, only about 1/3rd of the United States population currently live in a community with a smoking ban, and most states and communities have bans much less restrictive than the ones proposed by NKYaction.

"It's not a ban, it's a smoke free environment ordinance"

A ban by any other name is still a ban. Forbidding an activity under threat of a fine or other legal action is a ban on that activity. They can try to gussy it up however they like, but it's a ban. In fact, their own literature refers to the push as a ban.

The overall goal of the pro-ban groups is a statewide ban. Their own literature plainly says this.

If I had to choose ... I will accept the loss of those killed in DUI related automobile crashes

Wow.

Do you recognize that there's a difference between government-legislated death versus self-inflicted death?

You are willing to allow the government to create a mandate that will result in innocent death, in order to prevent people from willfully engaging in harmful behavior.

If your moral compass knowingly allows innocent people to be killed by bad legislation, then there's not much else that can be said.

NKY Choice, on the other hand, does not advocate the taking of innocent life, especially by flawed government mandates.

I have the right to scream as loud as I want as long as I'm not disturbing the peace. You have a right to smoke as long as it doesn't bother someone else.

When in or on someone else's property -- business or home -- you have the right to yell only as loud as they allow. You do not have the right to force what you want to do upon the property owner. The property owner decides what is or isn't allowed on their property. Similarly, you can't go to a concert, and ask the organizers to turn down the music. You know, when you enter a concert, that there will be loud music. You make the decision to enter the concert, or not, knowing full-well to what you will be subjected. That is a consumer choice. You have the right to decide whether or not to enter an establishment -- business or home -- if you know the owner allows indoor smoking. That is also consumer choice.

The majority of people want a smoking ban

It is our contention that the majority would change their mind, if presented with all of the facts. Presenting all of the facts is the primary goal of this website.

Regardless, the country is not a democracy, and for good reason. There are certain inalienable rights, reflected in our founding documents, and provisions to specifically prevent a tyranny of the majority. The Kentucky Constitution, in its Bill of Rights, addresses this particular issue as follows:

Section 2: Absolute and arbitrary power denied.
Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Immediate Action Is Required By The Fiscal Courts

The fiscal court has never been in the business of protecting employee health.

There is a state and federal agency already set up for this purpose, namely OSHA.

Therefore, there is no precedent for the fiscal court to take such actions in their respective jurisdictions.

Bars and restaurants are strictly regulated to prevent them from serving food or drink that causes illness

To say that restaurants don't serve food that cause illness is outwardly false.

A number of national food chains have had their dishes scrutinized, and a number of these items contained over 2000 calories, the daily maximum for the average adult, in a single dish, and a couple were in the 4000 calorie range. If you consume a 4000 calorie dish, or dishes like that, often enough, it will create a serious health risk to the individual, and if that individual is part of a family, put the family at risk for instability.

Heart disease and diabetes are caused by obesity, and can be linked to the food that people eat, specifically in restaurants where the food contains more calories and sugar.

Try eating at McDonald's every day. Better yet, to save your health, go watch "Supersize Me" instead.

This is why many see the "next step" beyond smoking bans as the regulation what foods people may consume, and in fact we have seen this "next step" already coming to fruition in New York, and now California, where smoking bans started.

"If somebody eats a cheeseburger, the person serving it to them does not get fat."

No, one person eating doesn't make another fat. However, if the person goes into a place that only serves cheeseburgers, they can't go in and demand that they be served a salad that isn't offered on the menu. Simply put, you can't, nor should you try to force people to change their lives just because you don't like it.

Additionally, this ban does lead down the route of regulating food consumption, because the argument "Smokers increase the cost of health care for everyone", as given by the pro-ban folks, also justifies regulating how individuals choose to eat, live, and work. Again, look at trans-fat bans in New York, and next in California. These were the same places to begin the smoking bans. UPDATE: A Louisville Metro-Councilperson has now proposed a ban on trans-fat. It is a slippery-slope.

"I Can't Find Anywhere To Eat Without Smoke"

You're obviously not trying very hard, or just have really bad luck. The majority of restaurants are already smoke-free today.

Let's examine the history of smoking in restaurants in Northern Kentucky:
15 years ago, you could smoke at McDonald's.
10 years ago, you could smoke at Applebee's.
  5 years ago, you could smoke at the majority of restaurants.
Today, the majority of restaurants in Boone and Kenton are already smoke free. (Campbell is still being researched). Please refer to our study data under the "Kenton" and "Boone" links on the left.

Besides, if you really hate smoke, go visit Ohio. Their restaurants and bars could use some patrons.

"I have to carry an inhaler because I can't be around smoke"

If you have an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke so bad that you have an asthma attack, perhaps you should avoid all areas that cause you to suffer such an attack.

Ken Moellman, a spokesperson for NKY Choice, is extremely allergic to floral plants. That's why he doesn't go to Krohn Conservatory. He misses out on the trains and other portions of the Christmas display. Perhaps we should ask the conservatory to move all of these high-allergen plants outside. It wouldn't be a ban on flowers; we'd just be asking for such plants giving off potentially deadly allergens to be placed outside.

Obviously this solution is sarcasm, but it makes a key point.

You cannot force people to change how they conduct their lives and their business. You can prosecute a business for misleading you by feeding you toxic food or in some other way committing fraud; however, you cannot force the owner of a restaurant to change the menu. You cannot expect everyone to bend to your whim; even if it's the majority opinion. Using the government to force the will of the "majority" down the throats of those who otherwise gather peacefully, and do not force you to participate (no one makes you walk into that business), is a tyranny of the majority. It's also why our country is a democratic-republic, and not a pure democracy.

The author of the study you cite says smoking bans are worth it.

The part of the study that is referenced on this website is the part based in facts. The authors then add their own conjecture to the study.

Is it really worth killing innocent people to force change on 100 restaurateurs? People who may spend their entire life avoiding smoking establishments can die, so that the ban zealots can get the minority of restaurants left in the area that still allow indoor smoking?

People willfully choose to work and patronize smoking establishments - NKY Choice has proposed plans to ensure that their actions are voluntary. Innocent people in DUI fatalities don't choose to die. This ban, if passed, will legislate the death of innocent citizens. There's a big difference there.

Business owners in Columbus, Ohio love the ban

First, patrons in Columbus Ohio have to drive at least 90 miles to get away from their ban, so patrons no longer have a choice.

Second, business owners in Columbus do not love the ban. A great number of them hate the ban, if for no other reason than the affront to their property rights.

Finally, Ohio is now working on relaxing their ban, as it has hurt their state's economy, and specifically the small business owners.

All workers have a right to work in a safe, healthy, non-life-threatening environment.

At Longnecks, in Wilder, Kentucky, the owner told NKYchoice representatives that 23 of his 25 employees smoke, and that the other 2 don't care. The owner, Gary Anthoniessen, is himself a non-smoker, but sees the bans as an infringement on his personal property rights.

Many people work in high-stress environments. Some choose to work in such environments, because they like it. Some people sit at a desk all day with no physical activity. Some work with large equipment that could crush them without warning. Some work on interstates with vehicles passing by at 65MPH. Some work on the tops of bridges, stadiums, and other tall structures, where one false move could lead to them falling to their death. In general, work is bad for you.

A plan is provided to address this issue, as it was the key to Ohio's ban being passed, but honestly, almost everyone has an unhealthy work environment, if for no other reason than work is usually stressful, and stress is unhealthy.

The Founders Thought Life Was More Important

The founders smoked all kinds of substances. They were addressing the immediate taking of life by an oppressive force.

The Declaration of Independence, in its first draft, mentioned "property", in accordance with John Locke's writing; it is speculated that property was removed because of the fear that slavery would become entrenched otherwise.