The Great American Saloon Series
Sweet 21
Seventy-five years ago today, Americans regained the right to drink.
Seventy-five years ago today Utah ratified the 21st Amendment and brought the United States’ dark age of Prohibition to a close. The very first Repeal Day was cause for raucous celebration, but since then the anniversary has mostly languished in obscurity. This year December 5 is finally getting the attention it deserves, thanks in large part to Oregon bartender and founder of RepealDay.org Jeffrey Morgenthaler. Tonight drinkers throughout the nation will raise a glass to freedom.
As we toast, we should also reflect on how the spirit of the Anti-Saloon League lives on in the continued growth of the nanny state. Just as the teetotalers of the previous century held governments in thrall, so today do various do-gooders persuade city councils and state legislators to restrict our choices “for our own good.”
Yesterday’s demonization of drink is reflected most clearly in today’s anti-smoking crusade. The speakeasy has been replaced by the smoke-easy as bar owners hide ashtrays from sight from meddling health inspectors. Smoking bans have gone from California oddity to standard practice, creeping to ever more absurd extremes. Outdoor bans are increasingly common, extending to wide open beaches, parks, and golf courses. Dedicated cigar bars and tobacco shops are under fire. Even the home, the last refuge for many smokers, is no longer free from the government’s encroachment in some cities.
Though smoking remains legal, legislators are doing everything in their power to make it as expensive and unpleasant as possible. Smokers are an easy target for tax hikes and cigarette taxes now exceed any reasonable estimate of smoking’s social cost. Federal taxes on cigars may soon rise from five cents per stick to as high as three dollars and this year Congress came perilously close to explicitly forbidding certain types of cigarettes. Their only hangup was over whether to ban all tobacco flavorings or merely some of them.
Politicians interfere with what we eat as well. Transfat bans are becoming the trendy new public health measure, led by Michael Bloomberg’s successful campaign in New York — the same city where chain restaurants must now make nutritional information not merely available, but prominent, regardless of whether customers really want to be reminded of how many calories lurk in their combo meals. American cheese lovers lament the restrictions on young raw milk cheeses, readily available in Europe but blocked domestically by risk-averse regulators who wouldn’t know Camembert from Kraft. Can restrictions on salt, caffeine, or high fructose corn syrup be far behind?
Then there’s the legacy of Prohibition itself. Though the 21st Amendment legalized alcohol sales, state regulations impede truly free markets. The ubiquitous three-tier system of producers, distributors, and retailers has spawned countless laws benefiting middlemen at the expense of consumers. Constraints on direct sales increase the cost of alcohol while bans on shipping make it impossible to order boutique spirits, wines, and beers. Even as the Internet has granted consumers access to the abundant long tail of countless goods, drink lovers remain trapped in a 1930s model of distribution.
Finally, we should acknowledge our contemporary struggle with prohibition. The war on drugs has led to gang violence, trampling of civil liberties, and military interventions abroad. Federalist principles are routinely ignored in medical marijuana raids, doctors face prosecution for prescribing painkillers, and ordinary adults must show their ID just to purchase effective cold medicine. The United States now has more than 300,000 people imprisoned for drug violations.
The ratification process of the 21st Amendment holds a lesson for today. All other amendments have been ratified by state legislatures, but this was different. Fearing that rural lawmakers would not bear the ire of the temperance movement, Congress sent the 21st directly to the people assembled in state conventions.
Bringing the modern nanny state to heel will depend on countless individuals standing up against those who would trade our liberties for their preferences. On this Repeal Day, raise a glass to freedom regained and to freedoms still to be won. Cheers to the 21st Amendment!
Letter to the Editor View all comments (96) | Leave a comment
More Articles From The Great American Saloon Series
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/05/sweet-21
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Obama Rules| 12.5.08 @ 1:14PM
May I remind you that it was conservative Christians who imposed Prohibition. Once again, doing what's wrong for America. When you're drinking a beer tonight, remember to thank us level-headed Democrats for that right.
Charles Perry| 12.5.08 @ 1:44PM
Let us also remember that those level-headed Democrats repealed Prohibition not because it abridged freedom or encouraged crime, but because bootleg liquor was irritatingly untaxed.
CC Pastor| 12.5.08 @ 2:21PM
Let me also remind you that more often than not it is the C. Christian that is out there in the winter freeze, helping out the guy (now living in a tent) who has drunk himself out of a job, a home, friends and family, and any level-headed political party rep... finding him alternative lodging, food, warm blankets... and a Way out of his dire predicament!
Vern Crisler | 12.5.08 @ 2:50PM
While I am sympathetic with Jacob's concerns, I don't think a purist libertarian view is acceptable. The state has what has been called the "police power" in which it can impose regulations on certain enterprises if they harm people. The problem isn't regulation or no regulation, but good versus bad regulation. Prohibition was well-intentioned, but was too much regimentation in order to solve social ills. The same is not necessarily true with drugs (prescription or illicit), which can be very dangerous if unregulated. Drug legalization is a political non-starter, because no one is going to go along with it. They might be persuaded about the other things, though, if libertarians would stop painting with too broad a brush.
hp| 12.5.08 @ 2:52PM
I'll thank you democrats when you quit attempting to force your nanny-state restrictions on the second amendment.....
iamse7en| 12.5.08 @ 3:02PM
We have to draw the line somewhere. Alcohol has ruined more lives than we realize (whether it be addiction, abuse, or drunk driving). Drugs certainly ruin lives as well, but I guess the real question is the impact of legalization of these substances on society. When determining to legalize, say drugs, we must see if the benefit exceeds the cost. I'm with the group that believes legalization will undoubtedly increase consumption of the substance, and therefore the social cost.
Did the benefit of the legalization of alcohol exceed its cost? While there are benefits to the legalization of substances like alcohol and drugs, there are serious social costs as well, which are impossible to calculate. I'm looking at this from a purely economist view.
I also understand the principle behind freedom to smoke, but to be honest, I like smoking bans because I find smoking to be very irritating. I find it so irritating that I wouldn't go to certain restaurants if it were present. I agree with the principle, because restaurant owners should decide whether they allow smoking or not, not politicians, but I actually like smoking bans.
Steven Martinovich | 12.5.08 @ 3:05PM
To celebrate the anniversary I plan on having several drinks tonight for my American cousins!
Brett| 12.5.08 @ 3:26PM
"Yesterday's demonization of drink is reflected most clearly in today's anti-smoking crusade."
Actually, it's reflected most clearly in the hugely overblown demonization of Cannabis, an intoxicant of dramatically less risk than Alcohol.
Len Kaanta| 12.5.08 @ 3:49PM
It was under Democrat Woodrow Wilson that Prohibtion came into being.
Against the Herd| 12.5.08 @ 3:55PM
To Obama Rules:
The Congress that passed the 18th Amendment was composed of actually a slight more Democrats who were dry (about 46% of Democrats) versus Republicans who were dry (about 45% of Republicans) . I'd probably check my facts before suggesting that Republicans who imposed prohibition.
I've read comments that you've made for other articles and all you can do is whine and criticize about everything. Why don't you present an actual logical, thoughtful, and informative argument instead of making inflammatory remarks? Also, maybe you should thank your lucky stars for conservatives, since true conservatives actualy look to preserve the rights of individuals rather than impose their value system on society.
OH85| 12.5.08 @ 3:58PM
"I also understand the principle behind freedom to smoke, but to be honest, I like smoking bans because I find smoking to be very irritating."
~iamse7en
And I find your wish to impose restrictions on things that 'irk' you very irritating.
John| 12.5.08 @ 4:11PM
I am not American nor a historian , but even I know that the party of the Southern Baptist right wing nuts was the DEMOCRATS ie Sen ator R Byrd D and Prohibition , segregation during the first half of the 20th century. Do you guys not even know your own country's history? OBAMA obviously RULES the lack of accountability for history and civics teachers . Oh sorry. Educators.
Joe| 12.5.08 @ 4:25PM
The 21st Amendment does not give you the right to drink; it gives States the right to regulate alcohol within their boarders.
Thomas| 12.5.08 @ 4:40PM
Prohibition in the U.S. is an interesting story and almost exactly parallels the women's suffrage movement that culminated in the ratification of the 19th Amendment, just eighteen months after the ratification of the 18th amendment. Hardly a coincidence. It was not conservative Christians who imposed Prohibition, but, rather, women who were the driving force behind Prohibition. The reasoning behind Aalcohol prohibition may have been sound, but the sociological practice turned out to be a bust. Alcohol already had a long history of use as a recreational chemical and its use was deeply ingrained in Western culture. Making it illegal had little effect upon the level of use and created several highly detrimental consequences.
Obama Rules,
it may be alright to take swipes at Conservatives, Christians or even Conservative Christians, but it is never advisable to take a swipe at women.
crafty b| 12.5.08 @ 4:52PM
Vern Crisler | 12.5.08 @ 1:50PM
While I am sympathetic with Jacob's concerns, I don't think a purist libertarian view is acceptable. The state has what has been called the "police power" in which it can impose regulations on certain enterprises if they harm people.
.............................................
Vern.. I think the line is crossed when you're using the government to stop consenting adults from wilfully engaging in "unhealthy" behavior... that's when it's an abridgement of freedom and "nanny state" behavior.
And that's what's happening with smoking bans (and even criminalizing drug use).
Aevet2| 12.5.08 @ 5:03PM
Here's the plain and simple difference:
ONE guy drinking ONE drink at the next table doesn't hurt me, or the waiter, or my kids.
ONE guy smoking ONE cigarette at the next table DOES hurt me, the waiter, and my kids.
That's the core of the difference. It's the secondhand smoke. An organized state protects ME from the harm done by others. A nanny state protects me from MYSELF. We are not a nanny state, you can still smoke, just not around unwilling participants.
Alan| 12.5.08 @ 5:09PM
While I too prefer a smoke-free environment, I feel each business Owner should decide--after all, if there is a demand for smoke-free environments then consumers should flock to them when offered.
What really ticks me off is the hypocracy of the government, wanting to regulate and tax tobacco, wringing money from the product through taxes and class-action suits, yet it remains legal. Is there another product so clearly linked to cancer than tobacco that is allowed to be legally sold as freely as tobacco? To me it looks like as long as there is a flow of revenue to the government from tobacco they don't care about the health impacts or anything else, just keep the money coming.
To me, it is as simple as if it is truly that bad then make it illegal, and if you won't do that then back off with all the harassment. I do not smoke but my dad did for 40 years, and I feel that way despite losing him last year to lung cancer at age 63.
crafty b| 12.5.08 @ 5:15PM
Aevet2 | 12.5.08 @ 4:03PM
Here's the plain and simple difference:
ONE guy drinking ONE drink at the next table doesn't hurt me, or the waiter, or my kids.
ONE guy smoking ONE cigarette at the next table DOES hurt me, the waiter, and my kids.
That's the core of the difference. It's the secondhand smoke. An organized state protects ME from the harm done by others. A nanny state protects me from MYSELF. We are not a nanny state, you can still smoke, just not around unwilling participants.
...................................
"unwilling participants"???
I'm presuming you were forced at gunpoint by that smoker to drag your kids into that (privately owned) restaurant so that he could expose all of you to his secondhand smoke? And that employee is a slave and not a willful adult who agreed to work there?
Unless that's the case, then just shut it.. You don't have an inherent right for the Government to force the environment everywhere you go to be just how your delicate sensibilities dictate (particularly on property owned by other private citizens).
This is the problem with smoking bans, it's emblematic of how our society has become a bunch've singular islands of narcissism walking around. If you don't like smoke, then don't go walking into a place where the owner decides to allow smoking... doesn't seem too complicated to those of us who aren't walking around like the world revolves around our personal delicate sensibilities.
Vern Crisler| 12.5.08 @ 5:30PM
Hi crafty b,
But I don't support smoking bans in private businesses. But what about public places? Doesn't the state have some responsibility to protect the quality of the public environment? Not that I buy into all the second-hand smoke propaganda, but some people have a hard time with smoke, for health reasons and otherwise. In addition, the state does have an interest in the health of its citizens. Poisons have to be labelled as such. Prescription drugs should not be sold to children. Etc. A broad-brush libertarian prohibition of all state action is simply unworkable, not to mention dangerous.
crafty b| 12.5.08 @ 5:40PM
Vern Crisler | 12.5.08 @ 4:30PM
Hi crafty b,
But I don't support smoking bans in private businesses. But what about public places? Doesn't the state have some responsibility to protect the quality of the public environment? Not that I buy into all the second-hand smoke propaganda, but some people have a hard time with smoke, for health reasons and otherwise. In addition, the state does have an interest in the health of its citizens. Poisons have to be labelled as such. Prescription drugs should not be sold to children. Etc. A broad-brush libertarian prohibition of all state action is simply unworkable, not to mention dangerous.
...................................................
Oh, absolutely. I believe the government has all the right in the world to ban smoking in public places. Even outdoor ones such as beaches and such. A non-smoker (and his kids) definately has a right to a smoke-free environment in spaces his tax dollars pay for.
But the poster I was replying to was bemoaning about how he needs the Government to protect him and his kids from secondhand smoke in private restaurants (and even had the mind-twisting gall to claim that that's not Nanny-state-ism), which is absurd and pathetic. You are a person of free will... you have all the ability you need to protect yourself from secondhand smoke in a private restaurant by simply not going in there. No Government intervention necessary.
Jeff| 12.5.08 @ 5:52PM
On smoking: Why should we have any sympathy for people who throw their money and their health away? Drinking is a social phenomenon, what has smoking got to defend itself with but nicotine? This isn't my problem right now, but when (the Obama) government is in the business of paying welfare to the poor and health of the sick, it becomes my problem.
crafty b| 12.5.08 @ 5:59PM
Jeff | 12.5.08 @ 4:52PM
On smoking: Why should we have any sympathy for people who throw their money and their health away? Drinking is a social phenomenon, what has smoking got to defend itself with but nicotine? This isn't my problem right now, but when (the Obama) government is in the business of paying welfare to the poor and health of the sick, it becomes my problem.
Remove "smoking" with just about any and every fast food chain out there and that sentance makes just as much sense.
You want the government to ban McDonalds?
Oh, and smoking is just as much a social phenomenon as drinking.
Tom| 12.5.08 @ 6:04PM
How do people reach the age of maturity and still think with their emotions and not logic?
We are talking about LAWS here. And we get words like "feel", "irk", "social", blah blah blah.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The constitution was based on the idea that Government will try to take away those rights, and we shall make no laws to do so. They are my rights, not the government's, not some irked group, not some concerned economist's evaluating costs and benefits. Social costs only exist because we REQUIRE our neighbors to pay them! If they are not required for me to pay I don't care what you do. Be informed. Be responsible. If you screw up, I will help you if I WANT TO not because I HAVE TO.
Political discourse these days is so darn tedious. Either you believe in freedom or you don't. It is what makes the difference between the best society that man can make or a living hell of control.
Southerner| 12.5.08 @ 6:28PM
Here is part of the problem I see with the attitudes of many Americans. On one hand, they say that the government should not regulate any unsafe behaviors like smoking or doing drugs, but they then ask for the government to provide healthcare. The government can only do this by taxing people who had nothing to do with the irresponsible behaviors that led to the self inflicted illnesses that inflict many smokers and drug users.
If people want to be left to their own devices when it comes to behaviors, I wish they would stop asking the government to make me (and all other taxpayers) pick up the pieces.
Dolmance| 12.5.08 @ 6:35PM
Hey, why doesn't the government really get out of the "Nanny State," business and allow food producers and processors (all of them getting fat taxpayer subsidies) and just let them sell whatever they want to round out the weight in their product - rat droppings, infected animals and other assorted goodies. I mean, we've got to deregulate... We saw how wonderfully that all worked out with the Republican's economic theories, as we plunge into a brand new Great Depression.
obvious| 12.5.08 @ 6:39PM
It is ridiculous to compare laws banning smoking in public places to prohibition. Tobacco smoke is air pollution and should be banned in public places. I was skeptical at first but after the ban took effect in NY bars, I realized how nice it is to go out for an evening and not come home smelling like an ash tray. I hear this same sentiment from smokers as well who don't like their cloths smelling of smoke. If you want to talk about prohibition, a better comparison would be the ban on marijuana. The United States wastes billions of tax dollars each year prosecuting and locking up individuals for marijuana possession, as was briefly mentioned in this article. That money could be put to much better use. If Marijuana was legalized the federal government could start collecting taxes on it, just like they do with cigarettes, and then we could use that money to dig ourselves out of the financial pit we are currently in.
Rodman| 12.5.08 @ 6:45PM
I'm all for freedom. But what about my freedom to eat in a restaurant, go to a club, or work in an environment that doesn't stink of tobacco smoke and is not hazardous to my health? Second-hand smoke has been proven to be a health hazard, pal. Thanks, but I don't want lung cancer.
Or how about my freedom to take my kids to a beach that is not covered with cigarette butts? That's how it used to be before smoking was banned on beaches in California, and it was disgusting, unhealthy, and really horrible for the environment.
Prohibition. The truth is that prohibition came about because too many men stopped at the saloon after work, then came home and beat up their wives. I'm not making this up. As Yogi said, you could look it up. Nowadays, the freedom to beat up your wife has been curtailed -- most people look down on that particular liberty. But the abuse of alcohol still does a great deal of damage in our society. Nothing to be done. As Will Rogers said, "The only way to keep 'em from wanting it is to let 'em have it."
Okay for adults. But most kids who abuse alcohol start by drinking their parents' booze at home. And keep drinking it. If we legalized drugs, we'd have to assume that the same sort of thing would happen. And some "recreational" drugs are known to change the brain chemistry and/or function so that a user is never the same again. Drug use is already a serious enough problem among young people. Should we allow them to go to their local Walgreens and buy it? Not a great idea.
Talking about Nanny states; how about saying that people who are dumb enough to smoke sign a contract promising that, if they get sick, once their financial assets have been depleted for their health care we pull the plug? No medicare or other government help. No medical treatment at all. Zip. Why should I pay for their stupidity and refusal to look after themselves? You want freedom? Fine. The freedom to do whatever should also include the freedom to die of it.
Thomas| 12.5.08 @ 7:01PM
I agree, let's legalize marijuana. Of course, its use would fall under the smoking [or no-smoking] laws and you could only light up at home. That is if you didn't have minor children in the house. A contact high would be child abuse, after all. Yeah, screw the smokers. Why should their habit intrude on the Disney-like quality of my existence. Hey, bro, don't Bogart that joint. Now, heroin, cocaine [not crack], amphetamines, barbiturates, and a thousand other drugs that are taken intravenously or ingested don't intrude on your neighbor's pleasant atmosphere, so why not legalize them? Apply a little bit of logic to this discussion, please.
I agree with obvious. Buy selling marijuana over the counter and then refusing to let people light up, this country could save hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Good call. I guess thats why you call yourself obvious.
Julia| 12.5.08 @ 7:49PM
------
Talking about Nanny states; how about saying that people who are dumb enough to smoke sign a contract promising that, if they get sick, once their financial assets have been depleted for their health care we pull the plug? No medicare or other government help. No medical treatment at all. Zip. Why should I pay for their stupidity and refusal to look after themselves? You want freedom? Fine. The freedom to do whatever should also include the freedom to die of it.
-------
The problem with this arguement is it would apply any unhealthy behavior. Fast food gets a lot of bad press (rightfully so!) but eating at a five star resturant can be just as bad depending upon what you order. Will the government be allowed to decide what types of foods, how many calories in each meal, grams of fat, sugar, etc.? Will the government be allowed to control how much alcohol is consumed by any one person in any given day, week month? Will the government be allowed to decide to force you to move if the air quality isn't up to some standard they set? Will the government outlaw chocolate/candy or limit how much a citizen can buy?
This is the problem when we start regulating things based on what someone else decides is good for the country.
I agree that smoking should be mostly banned in public places. However, since smokers are tax payers too and they also use public places, they should have designated smoking areas.
From my experience, alcohol causes a lot more damage to society than cigarettes. I can walk away from someone who is smoking...I may not walk away from someone who is driving under the influence. Cigarettes do not lead to violence as alcohol can. Alcohol can cause just as many health issues as cigarettes. And yet, it is the cigarettes and smokers that keep getting all the blame. If you are going to limit/prohibit smoking, you will have to do the same thing to anything considered a vice. If you aren't prepared to give up any and all unhealthy behaviors, then you can't ask others to.
Julia| 12.5.08 @ 7:49PM
------
Talking about Nanny states; how about saying that people who are dumb enough to smoke sign a contract promising that, if they get sick, once their financial assets have been depleted for their health care we pull the plug? No medicare or other government help. No medical treatment at all. Zip. Why should I pay for their stupidity and refusal to look after themselves? You want freedom? Fine. The freedom to do whatever should also include the freedom to die of it.
-------
The problem with this arguement is it would apply any unhealthy behavior. Fast food gets a lot of bad press (rightfully so!) but eating at a five star resturant can be just as bad depending upon what you order. Will the government be allowed to decide what types of foods, how many calories in each meal, grams of fat, sugar, etc.? Will the government be allowed to control how much alcohol is consumed by any one person in any given day, week month? Will the government be allowed to decide to force you to move if the air quality isn't up to some standard they set? Will the government outlaw chocolate/candy or limit how much a citizen can buy?
This is the problem when we start regulating things based on what someone else decides is good for the country.
I agree that smoking should be mostly banned in public places. However, since smokers are tax payers too and they also use public places, they should have designated smoking areas.
From my experience, alcohol causes a lot more damage to society than cigarettes. I can walk away from someone who is smoking...I may not walk away from someone who is driving under the influence. Cigarettes do not lead to violence as alcohol can. Alcohol can cause just as many health issues as cigarettes. And yet, it is the cigarettes and smokers that keep getting all the blame. If you are going to limit/prohibit smoking, you will have to do the same thing to anything considered a vice. If you aren't prepared to give up any and all unhealthy behaviors, then you can't ask others to.
nkp| 12.5.08 @ 8:02PM
Thomas says:-
...It was not conservative Christians who imposed Prohibition, but, rather, women who were the driving force behind Prohibition. ...
Maybe we should ban passing any laws primarily supported by women.
Rodman| 12.5.08 @ 8:26PM
Look, Julia, it is ridiculous to compare smoking to going to McDonald's once in a while. There is no comparison to indulging in a life threatening activity which we know is horribly addictive, to putting sugar in your coffee or eating at a pizza.
Yes, certainly there are people who are obese, who essentially eat themsevles to death. There are alchololics who drink themselves to death; and who take out innocent people on the roads when they are too blind drunk to see.
But understand -- I'm not suggesting banning smoking. God, that would be a disaster. We'd have nicotine addicts running all over our cities shooting each other for a pack of cigarettes. What I am saying is that along with freedom comes responsibility. If you are going to go out and have a drink, you have the responsibility to find a way to get home that does not endanger others. If you are drunk behind the wheel, we take your license away or put you in jail. If you hurt someone, you can spend a very long time in jail.
If someone chooses to smoke, or rather to take up the habit of smoking, where is their responsibility for that action? Their own health, yes. But who is going to pay for their chemotherapy when their money runs out? Is it up to the taxpayer to look after this person after he or she gets lung cancer from smoking? Or some other lung disease? Yes, true, we can't make a law to stop people from eating junk food until they become obese and a health burden on society. But it's pretty easy to know who has been a smoker. Again I ask, why should the taxpayer be forced to pick up the tab for someone who consciously indulges in reckless behavior? They are free to indulge. But I don't want to take responsibility for their indulgence.
I say tax them as much as possible, and include a "health tax". It wouldn't be hard to figure out what the average health costs of being a smoker are. Insurance companies do it all the time.
Loring| 12.5.08 @ 8:33PM
Um, why does the government have the right to tell you to drive on the right side of the road? Why not let people drive where they like to? Indeed, why have roads specifically designated for driving and others (sidewalks) specifically designed for pedestrians at all? We are all capable of avoiding hitting a pedestrian or walking into a moving car, just like we avoid hitting trees and buildings or walking into them. Why can't we urinate or defecate in public? How is that less bad than spewing smoke into someone's face? Animals do it and survive very nicely. They are smart enough not to smoke or overeat, something we humans might learn from. Why can't we have sex in public? That certainly doesn't hurt anyone, since it is a perfectly natural act without which the species would cease to exist. In fact, we constantly make choices to elect representatives who make laws for everyone that reflect what the majority of the moment feel is acceptable in public or not. If we don't like those laws, we can elect someone else. Which is exactly what happened this election. You are all arguing about what is your personal favorite thing to regulate or not. Isn't that a waste of time?
Just Bill| 12.5.08 @ 8:42PM
Two of the three ushers in my wedding, both very close friends, drank themselves to death within the last five years. My grandfather couldn't stop drinking even though he was dying of cirrosis of the liver, so he put a gun to his head. If alcohol were much more difficult to get, they might all have lived.
Derrick| 12.5.08 @ 9:06PM
Sorry to hear about that Just Bill, but we should not ban something based on certain people's abuse of it. Most people can responsibly drink alcohol, responsibly shoot guns, and responsibly drive cars but accidents and abuse are bound to happen with all three of them.
As for criminally dangerous drugs that can not be used responsibly or safely by most people even with one use, or small amounts(heroin), ban them. Otherwise, keep Big Brother out of it.
Julia| 12.5.08 @ 9:45PM
Rodman -
The point is unhealthy behavior is unhealthy beahvaior. If you want smokers to be responsible for their own health care, shouldn't people who drink, eat bad foods, not exercise enough, sky dive, rock climb, etc. be responsible for their own health care? It's an all or nothing issue. If you choose to go rock climbing and fall, should tax payers be liable to pay for your health costs? If you choose to drink excessively, should tax payers be responsible for your on going medical care?
I don't agree with just picking one group and penalizing them. If you were going to institute a "health tax" it would essentially have to apply to everyone because everyone has different behaviors.
LAL | 12.5.08 @ 9:56PM
Want to see a case of Selective Prohibition in 2008? Check out www.NoOnPropD.org and you will learn how the wealthy land owners, crooked politicians and a small vocal group stripped ALL San Diegans in California of the Freedom to enjoy a beer or cup of wine at ALL City beaches, bays and parks. I guess if you have the money you can create the laws…
More On Prop D | 12.5.08 @ 10:06PM
I did some research on Proposition D in San Diego CA and this is a travesty!
Go to www.FreePB.org for more information on Selective Prohibition in 2008.
Follow Up~Article (click here) | 12.5.08 @ 10:10PM
How booze ban passed
San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE
~ November 30, 2008 ~
MGersh | 12.5.08 @ 10:56PM
FWIW, Heroin used to be a legal drug, and a bare minority of legal users abused it. Nobody ever died of marijuana abuse. And the "second hand smoke" study that is referred to so often is a joke among real scientific researchers, and has been repudiated and outed as a sham in peer reviewed journals for years.
But then, you probably believe that last October was the warmest month ever. The stupidity and willful ignorance of a majority of Americans makes me fear for the future of the republic. Democracy requires an informed citizenry, and when we lose our democracy, that ignorance will have been the reason.
John| 12.5.08 @ 11:47PM
MGersh speaks the truth.
shecky| 12.6.08 @ 12:47AM
The result is that I can step out of my house right now, and within 15 minutes, obtain any illegal drug I want with a very small chance of getting caught. How many billions of dollars have been tossed at solving the drug problem just in my lifetime? Not enough to make any difference. Except to incentivize blackmarket activity, raise the ceiling in associated violent crime, militarize the police, cut back on civil liberties, and subsidize the prison industry. And I still have only the same minor hoops to jump through to get any drug I want.
The war on drugs has been an utter and absolute failure. Decriminalization of drugs isn't just some libertarian orthodoxy. It's an extremely practical and necessary step we must be brave enough to take if we truly value liberty and smaller government.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.6.08 @ 1:45AM
While reasonable people can differ about what the best policy is with regard to such recreational drugs as methamphetamines, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and the like (although in fairness, it should be noted that those are four very different drugs; technically, I've only tried three of them, but I'm pretty sure none of those were much like heroin), but the idea that marijuana is still banned in 49 out of 50 states, in this Year of Lord 2008, is simply incomprehensible. What a bunch of cowardly weaklings we have governing our society, that the blue-nosed old farts who think marijuana should be banned, haven't been told to go climb a tree. Prohibition of Marijuana is a true stain on the record of American liberty. If you had told me, back in 1983, that it would still be going on 25 years in the future, I flat out wouldn't have believed you. I doubt many other people would have, either. Is there a single state Legislature in the entire Union, where a majority of the membership hasn't tried marijuana? I doubt it. Its also less harmful, by any objective standard, than either tobacco or alcohol.
Oh, and for the record, I ain't jumping on the sell-out bandwagon of "we-can-tax-the-Hell-out-of-it." Forget that! Marijuana should be taxed at no greater rate than tobacco, if not less. Ideally, it shouldn't be taxed at all.
Americans have a right to smoke marijuana. People who don't agree, they don't deserve to live in a free country (to the limited extent we still are one, at any rate).
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.6.08 @ 1:54AM
"But then, you probably believe that last October was the warmest month ever."
I wasn't aware that meme was being promoted, but I've lived here in San Jose since 1972, and it was the warmest October I can recall among the preceding 37. And all across the globe, glaciers are receding. I've also noticed that its been getting more humid around here, ever since the mid-to-late 1990s. Almost as if the sub-tropical zones are starting to shift northwards. I spent much of the 90s arguing against Global Warming, but I'm not so sure anymore. The enviro-weenies just may be right about this one. Even a stopped clock is right twice per day.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.6.08 @ 1:59AM
"Two of the three ushers in my wedding, both very close friends, drank themselves to death within the last five years. My grandfather couldn't stop drinking even though he was dying of cirrosis of the liver, so he put a gun to his head. If alcohol were much more difficult to get, they might all have lived. "
I doubt it; they'd have probably just drank rubbing alcohol, and died all the sooner. In any event, freedom has its costs. Its perhaps unfair that you've had to pay such a high personal cost of losing two friends and your grandfather, but irrespective of such statistical anomalies, the American people have a right to drink alcoholic beverages. Starting at age 18, not that 21 travesty.
Rodman| 12.6.08 @ 1:59AM
Julia, fine with me. Initiate a health tax. The problem with this Libertarian garbage is that all these simplistic people want to be "free" to do whatever they want, but they want somebody else to pay for it. They want to be allowed to take whatever drug they fancy, but then when they o.d. and become a vegetable, they expect the state to pay for them to lie in a coma for years with tubes everywhere and want somebody to come in and turn their bodies every few hours. Or when they get addicted they want a government program to rehab them and then look after them for the rest of their lives because their brains are fried and they're not able to function in any productive manner anymore. They have their fun, the government pays.
I am fed up with having to pay for somebody else's irresponsible behavior. "Freedom" does not equal a free ride. In fact, the more freedom one has, the more responsibility he or she is required to exercise. If too many people stop taking responsibility for what they do, that's what we call immaturity. And Narcissm. America is rife with it. And you end up with a society where people charge a WalMart and run over some poor man, killing him, because they want the latest price rollback for themselves. And when they're told to leave the story because somebody has died, they refuse. "What about MY shopping spree? I'VE been waiting in line! My credit card isn't maxed out yet!" Is that enough freedom for you, folks?
And Julia, tell me. Why is it an "all or nothing issue"? Why? Yes, sure, we can't prove that that some people have stuffed too many fries in their pie hole and that caused their arteries to clog, but can't we AT LEAST make people who decide to ruin their health with cigarettes pay for it? They exercised their Constitutional right to smoke. Why shouldn't they pay for it? The least we can do is tax the hell out of cigarettes and put the money into the Medicare program. Call it a "Nanny State" if you want to. In my view, if outrageously high cigarette taxes, or the difficulty of finding a place to smoke at all, saves one family from watching a loved one die an agonizing death, it's worth it.
And by the way, if you are a smoker, please -- quit.
Jason| 12.6.08 @ 2:10AM
In the summer of 2006 - I can remember the exact day; June 6, a Tuesday - entirely due to the fact that I was no longer willing to pay three dollars for twenty cigarettes, I quit smoking. And have never gone back. Now, they say there are two kinds of former smokers: those who get all Nazi about smoking, and those who never stop craving it. I'm a third kind: I'm a non-smoking anti-anti-smoker. I have found that, in the years since I quit, my loathing for the anti-smoking crowd - well represented here in comments - has only gone up. I fantasize about having current smokers light up and then hold down the silly "but it gets in my clothes and my snot-nosed little brat of a kid might get second-hand smoke" mewlers down on the ground as I put out their lit cigs on the whining anti-smoker's backs. It has been an interesting thing to note, my resentment, contempt, and disdain for the anti-smoking crowd and their smarmy nanny-state preening has actually GONE UP, even as the activity that they snivel about people doing - smoking - has thoroughly disappeared from my life. Of course, I'm a decent human being with a fair respect for freedom: the typical anti-smoker is either a bug-eyed slobbering fanatic, or a pedantic soccer mom-cowed worm who swallows the trendy platitudes of the cool-kid-crowd whole no matter what year it happens to be, and who THIS passing moments "cool kids" happen to be: we would be better off without either aggregate mass of human blankitude topside on planet earth.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.6.08 @ 2:11AM
"Maybe we should ban passing any laws primarily supported by women. "
I have little doubt our society would benefit from such a rule.
Tobacco smoking doesn't generally cause cancer, emphysema, or whatnot, until about 40 years of use. I personally don't think its some great, human tragedy if a 67-year old dies early, and doesn't get to live to be 82. Old is old, and if you make it to old age, you lived a full life. Who cares if tobacco use causes you to kick off a few years early? That was the price you quite consciously paid, for allowing the use of tobacco to make many of the intervening years more pleasant. Some people get lucky on that gamble, and some don't. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
Between tobacco excise taxes, and all the old people who die of lung cancer and other tobacco-related ailments at an earlier age (thus saving the government substantial Social Security & Medicare funds), tobacco use is actually a net financial plus for our society's public sector.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.6.08 @ 2:13AM
"the typical anti-smoker is either a bug-eyed slobbering fanatic, or a pedantic soccer mom-cowed worm who swallows the trendy platitudes of the cool-kid-crowd whole no matter what year it happens to be, and who THIS passing moments 'cool kids' happen to be: we would be better off without either aggregate mass of human blankitude topside on planet earth. "
I have seldom read truer words.
Jason| 12.6.08 @ 2:14AM
"Rodman" is precisely the kind of blithering human blankitude I was referring to previously.
Sandy6| 12.6.08 @ 2:15AM
Obama Rules said: May I remind you that it was conservative Christians who imposed Prohibition. Once again, doing what's wrong for America. When you're drinking a beer tonight, remember to thank us level-headed Democrats for that right._____________No, prohibition came in under the Woodrow Wilson administration during WWI (1918) and that was the chief cause why so many people backed it. There was a dramatic increase in alcohol consumption due to high European immigration, the scenes of German beerhalls in America outraged the people who turned to support the WCTU.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.6.08 @ 2:21AM
"let's legalize marijuana. Of course, its use would fall under the smoking [or no-smoking] laws and you could only light up at home. That is if you didn't have minor children in the house. A contact high would be child abuse, after all."
There's no such thing as "a contact high." Certainly not from marijuana smoke, at any rate.
Sandy6| 12.6.08 @ 2:23AM
Before the Volstead Act (national prohibition) there were large swaths of America that were already `dry'. It had to do with Moon-Shining, producing non-taxed alcohol, it is those who liked cheap untaxed booze and those who make and transport it who got behind the local prohibition statutes.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.6.08 @ 2:25AM
"I believe the government has all the right in the world to ban smoking in public places. Even outdoor ones such as beaches and such. A non-smoker (and his kids) definately has a right to a smoke-free environment in spaces his tax dollars pay for."
Last time I checked, automobile engines were still allowed to operate within the vicinity of parks, beaches, etc. So clean air isn't the issue. The issue is self-righteous dickweeds who get off on telling other people what they can and can't do.
Nobody is genuinely bothered by cigarette smoke at a public park (it dissipates, after all). But some people enjoy pretending they are, because they are assholes. Case closed.
Rodman| 12.6.08 @ 2:34AM
Ooh, this is fun. Little Jason here thinks he's better than us 'cause he was a smoker and he was able to quit. Or rather he was too cheap to keep going. And because of that dubious accomplishment, he gets to call us names. Us "blankitudes" who, for some odd reason,think thay paying a lot of money to die early is one of the stupidest things that anybody can choose to do. But little Jason here is a child. He wants to stomp his feet and go out on the playground and call people names. And he truly, deeply wishes that he could afford to keep right on smoking.
Maybe he should. Why worry? According to Kevin, he won't get sick until he's 67. Exactly, it would seem. God, that's old! He'll probably die in a rock climbing accident before then, won't he Julia? Or eat at too many French restaurants and the cream sauces will do him in. And anyway, he'll be doing us all a favor by dying relatively early. So thank you for smoking, Jason. Enjoy coughing your lungs out.
Actually, Kevin, I'm just curious. Where did you get that absurd statistic? Out of the air? Wishful thinking? Probably both. Idiot. Try talking to a doctor. He or she will be happy to tell you what a smoker's lungs look like after five years of smoking. You better face reality, pal.
Jason| 12.6.08 @ 2:46AM
"Rodman," your commentary in this thread has been something of an intellectual joke - as anyone with an IQ hovering above 60 easily recognizes - but keep typing: we'll keep laughing.
Jason| 12.6.08 @ 2:56AM
One thing I should explain, and am glad to, is that my motive to quit smoking was spurred in part by the a commentator I heard who made the point that governments at levels - Federal, State, & Municipal - wanted smokers to keep buying cigarettes, they just didn't want them to smoke them. That was Judge Andrew Napolitano, and it occurred to me hearing the interview: I'm actually funneling dollars to asswipes who take my money with one eager hand and slap me in the face with the other. Metaphorically, of course. So my decision was not based on being "cheap," but on principle: as much as possible, quite VOLUNTARILY giving money to asswipes. I did, and am glad I did for that principled reason alone, but they remain asswipes - as do their burbling sycophants in comment threads such as these.
Jason | 12.6.08 @ 3:01AM
One thing I should explain, and am glad to, is that my motive to quit smoking was spurred in part by a commentator I heard who made the point that governments at all levels - Federal, State, & Municipal - wanted smokers to keep buying cigarettes alright - they just didn't want them to smoke them. That was Judge Andrew Napolitano, and it occurred to me hearing that interview that week leading up to my quitting smoking: I'm actually funneling dollars to asswipes who take my money with one eager hand and slap me in the face with the other. Metaphorically, of course. So my decision was not based on being "cheap," but on principle: as much as possible, I needed in this instance to quit VOLUNTARILY giving money to outright asswipes. I did, and am glad I did for that principled reason alone, but they remain outright asswipes - as do their burbling sycophants in comment threads such as these.
Red Dot in Blue State| 12.6.08 @ 8:02AM
People have a right to self-destruction and self-mutilation. I object to society giving them undue assistance. We have given tobacco, casino gambling, and alcohol too much encouragement just to enjoy the tax revenues and job creation.
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.6.08 @ 8:30AM
My grandfather (a Lutheran) was a "rum runner," he actually picked up and hauled corn liqueur from stills on local farms (nearly exclusively Catholics and Lutherans). He did this in milk cans, which had a secret compartment in the bottom, the top half actually contained milk. Both fluids were taken to a local (Jewish owned) dairy and bottled. My great uncle also was in the business and was proud of the fact he had the biggest still in the county, located underground and accessible only through a trapdoor in the middle of a pen containing a mean bull. What they did not haul was bottled by my father, not yet a teenager at the time, sold in pints at the local weekend dances, and at the local German home.
The Local Synagogues, Catholic and Lutheran churches are monumental, still standing, and erected in one of the most economically difficult periods of American history. Contrast this with the Methodists (my tea totaling denominational brethren), their place of worship at that time was a ramshackle wooden shack, and all that remains of it are faded photos.
The moral to this story is that if you want to exercise your constitutional right to drink kosher moonshine, you can’t let women in the priesthood, and you must have an expensive sanctuary. If you don’t imbibe you have to atone and marry gay people.
Bill M| 12.6.08 @ 2:42PM
Whoever wrote OBAMA RULEs,
Just remember what you wrote when your child or another loved one, or some complete stranger gets killed tonight by a drunk driver, all in the name of "freedom".
Alan Brooks| 12.7.08 @ 1:27AM
we should leave the laws as they are, freeze them.
keep the age in each state for purchasing alcohol as they are.
keep gay marriage in CT & Mass only.
no more banning smoke in public places.
dont legalize marijuana, fine users.
social progress is over!
but no one will agree.
Shooter| 12.7.08 @ 5:55PM
Take ten, expect five, and get two. Oh, and smoke if you got 'em.
I quit about 35 years ago but still fire up an occasional fine cigar. Every once in a while when getting a whiff of stale beer and cigarette smoke from a bar I get the urge to light up.
I truly cannot stand the anti-smoking Commies telling me I can't have a smoke on private property. Sorta like the helmet laws when I ride my Harley. Yes I wear a brain bucket, always have, always will, and will always resent the nanny-state for forcing me to do so
Shoshanna | 12.7.08 @ 6:01PM
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe wrote:
"I personally don't think its some great, human tragedy if a 67-year old dies early, and doesn't get to live to be 82. Old is old, and if you make it to old age, you lived a full life. Who cares if tobacco use causes you to kick off a few years early?"
********************************
Kevin, you speak with the ignorance of someone who is, at best, very young and inexperienced, or, at worst, severely undereducated. The vitality of life does not magically end at a certain age, nor does the enthusiasm, intensity, or generosity with which one engages in living.
A close friend of mine, age 69, who spent most of her time and energy joyfully volunteering her efforts to assist, aid, and comfort others, died this last summer-- from lung cancer-- and her death was very much a tragedy, not just for all those who knew and loved her as a friend, but for the countless individuals she could and would have helped over the next 20 years or so.
My older sister, also 69, heads her own multinational architecture and design firm-- which she founded 28 years ago-- and has offices from London to Hong Kong, New York to New Delhi, and all over the Pacific Rim, as well as a client list that looks like a "Who's Who" of international big business. She focuses her considerable talents and strengths on continuing to expand and grow the company for the future, and travels around the world four or five times a year to touch base with every office, troubleshoot where necessary, and advance talented personnel. I can't even begin to imagine her reaction if anyone were so ludicrous as to suggest that, at 69, her life is essentially over and it's fundamentally irrelevant whether she dies now or lives another twenty years. Frankly, I don't thing she has any intention of going. Ever.
My late mother, who smoked until she was 63 and was an actress, composer, newspaperwoman, and wrote special performance material for Hollywood stars, died a year and a half ago at the age of 88-- until two weeks before her death, she was busy working on both the score and libretto for a musical based on one of Ayn Rand's novels.
The world is full of people 60, 70, 80, and older who are living their lives with excitement and passion, contributing to the world-- whether it be the intimate world of their immediate friends and acquaintances or the broader world of the global community-- and whether the stage upon which they work is large or small, what they do and who they are makes a very real difference. To dismiss them on the basis of age bespeaks a degree of stupidity so embarrassing that one can only hope for your sake that, with time, you'll eventually overcome it. Until such time, you'd probably be best advised to say as little as possible.
Shooter| 12.7.08 @ 8:04PM
Shosanna---Well said. At 68 I am still active in the Publishing company I founded at age 51. Last year I ended my fourth one year term on the County Grand Jury as Foreman. I ride a Harley, hunt Elk in Colorado every year, have a ranch where I hunt deer and bear. If it wasn't for a hip replacement I'd still be running.
Thanks for convincing me I don't have to die just yet. I'll be around to harass the Kevins of this world for a while.
Jim| 12.8.08 @ 12:40AM
I find it offensive that people here call smokers stupid, Great Leader is a smoker. How can the most talented, most intelligent, most enlightened man of our time be stupid.
All of you who have called President Obama stupid will be reported to the FBI for hate speech.
No one here is qualified to pass judgement on him, he is above all your petty, ignorant, ill-informed judgements. I hope the Great and Wise Obama laughs and blows smoke in your faces as he
as he redistributes your wealth.
RYReady2RNR| 12.8.08 @ 8:29PM
I don't smoke, but have no desire to prevent others from doing so. Same goes for drugs, riding a motorcycle without a helmet or having unprotected sex. Why in the world are some people so hung up on controlling what others do?
Trackback| 6.29.09 @ 1:05PM
Cheap Pearl Bracelets, on Cheap Pearl Bracelets, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
sare | 7.1.09 @ 2:49AM
http://www.fantastic-replica.net
sare | 7.24.09 @ 11:49PM
http://www.fantastic-replica.net
Pingback| 8.7.09 @ 6:20PM
Happy Repeal Day! | The Kosmopolitan Online links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
links of london jewellery | 9.10.09 @ 10:23PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！
Aaron| 1.25.10 @ 7:10AM
Quote: "Yesterday's demonization of drink is reflected most clearly in today's anti-smoking crusade."
*
Quote 2: "Actually, it's reflected most clearly in the hugely overblown demonization of Cannabis, an intoxicant of dramatically less risk than Alcohol."
**********
Actually, it's best reflected in your country's continued demonization of alcohol. The success of the prohibition movement is that most Americans don't realize they still live under its effects, both in law and in culture. Any American who has travelled to almost any other country, and anyone from another country who has visited the US can tell you this. Unfortunately, the culture is so deeply ingrained that people don't even question ridiculous American "studies" that imply 99% of the world is brain damaged as a result of their under-21 drinking ages.