Sent to contact.ipr@gmail.com. Posted by Paulie.
Libertarian Party of Marion County
Press Release
Libertarian Party Questions Need for Smoking Ban
LPMC Contact: Sean Shepard, 317.513.2406 or by email at sshepard94@gmail.com
LPMC Website: http://www.indylp.org
Indianapolis, IN – (February 12, 2009) — Pending legislation in the Statehouse, as well as anticipated legislation in Marion County’s City County Council, seeks to limit choices for all Hoosiers. What is not clear is if these non-smokers are hoping to eventually ban tobacco altogether or if they think they have a right to enter a business and tell the owner how to manage his property. The Libertarian Party is a political party dedicated to individual and personal property rights, and opposes smoking bans in any form.
“Legislation like this will do nothing but erode the limited property rights we still have,” says Timothy Maguire, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Marion County. “Non-smoking venues are already available to all Hoosiers and nobody is being forced to work for or patronize a business that allows smoking.”
Former Libertarian candidate Mike Kole spoke to the State legislature earlier this year supporting business owner property rights. Look for more announcements from the Libertarian Party in the future as Indianapolis Libertarians plan events to raise awareness.
“Grown adults can make decisions for themselves,” said Chris Spangle, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. “Tobacco is a legal product in Indiana that adults can choose to use, work around, allow, or avoid. The government is not our parent, and we do not need it’s help in making decisions on how we run our businesses or lives. This would have a major impact on the jobs of the 300,000 Hoosiers that are employed in the bar & restaurant industry in Indiana. If an employee is uncomfortable with working in a smoking environment, they can exercise their free choice in accepting the job position or not.”
For more information, or to arrange an interview, please contact Sean Shepard at 317.513.2406 or by email at sshepard94@gmail.com.
16 responses so far ↓
1 Gene Trosper // Feb 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“Indiana Libertarians fight smoking ban” sounds tougher than “Libertarian party questions need for smoking ban”.
There is no “need” for a smoking ban.
“Questioning” it? I suppose if the bureaucrats gave a good enough answer about the “need”, then will Indiana Libertarians accept it and move on?
2 paulie cannoli // Feb 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I agree that fighting is better than questioning. As they say themselves,
“The Libertarian Party is a political party dedicated to individual and personal property rights, and opposes smoking bans in any form.”
3 Thomas Laprade // Feb 15, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Government power real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “second-hand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
4 Sylvia Lanski // Feb 16, 2009 at 5:29 am
Too bad we didn’t have some of you Libertarians in Canada, the anti-smokers have pushed, bullied and plowed through every business in this Country, and for what? So they can have their CHOSEN lifestyle. Now they’re coming into our homes by sneaking in through the garage (smoking in vehicles while children under 16 are present).
There is no scientific proof that ETS (secondhand smoke), in a well ventilated area, is harmful to anyone…including the employee.
Every business owner in this country has lost their “Freedom of Choice”. Do you think for one second they will stop there? Think again. You can bet, with confidence, they will try and “legally remove” every single business owner’s “Freedom of Choice”.
This will be just the beginning of many more “losses” if you allow Local and State Governments to remove YOUR Freedom of Choice. Stand up for your right of “Freedom of Choice”, Indiana, because if you lose it, you won’t get it back. Ask any Canadian.
5 Kevin // Feb 16, 2009 at 7:36 am
I am compelled to respond to the joyful cheering and the prompting of more! more! We always need more. Perpetually in search of another McCarthyist restriction, targeting “smokers” and soon the “obese” and others, but in the end affecting us all;
The level of obscene exaggerations to the nth degree empowering the next exaggeration, has simply taken us to a level of group think insanity spewing from these lobby groups who like to call themselves “Public Health Authorities” The public needs to catch on to the latest rumor mill nonsense, and see it for what it really is.
Let’s start with the latest “estimated” mortality number used, as opposed to counting real bodies. Used not because the exact data of how many died because of diseases, which could possibly be caused by smoking, or numerous other “related” causes, is not readily available. The estimate is always preferred by the lobbies, because it always finds the largest possible number. A number which is double the number claimed using even their own chanting that “half of smokers would die of smoking related diseases” such as heart attacks and other diseases of the elderly. This is true because it is simply the normal death rate for everyone, applied to the number of smokers in the crowd. We could also by using the same .7% [.007] multiply by the other 80% of the population who don’t smoke; and declare not smoking is responsible for the balance of the 2.3 million deaths that occur in the United States every year.
They are more simplistically stating, by enabling the “450,000 smokers who die every year” that smoking does not actually increase the death rate, above that rate we see in the general population. By following the flawed example most of the population missed; would it be acceptable to apply .007 to any religious or racial group in our community and single them out with similar claims? They cost us this much, and we pay for it with our taxes!!! [don’t they as well?] A cost which is usually the total cost of all the diseases in that category, regardless of the reality; the rest of us also suffer from the same diseases and in most cases in identical numbers, or very close to the same numbers. No one thinks smoking is beneficial to anyone, however resorting to intolerance and bigotry to sell population intolerance, is not a route I can support.
What is missed by the public being awakened by this type of promotion is the impression, that it is smokers who are being targeted by the social marketing campaigns. The truth lies in looking a little closer. It is the larger populace who are being controlled. They are not talking to smokers or the Tobacco Industry they are talking to the rest of us and bringing forth the arguments and language, we must use by their demand.
The demands they make in multi million dollar advertising campaigns, framed as, controlling elected officials, [or so it seems] are also, more often than not; financed by those same Public officials. Which is another much larger tax issue, someone needs to examine.
Not the smokers or the obese, or any of their other disease management categories. It is the larger populace who are being schooled, into the acceptance of being intolerant of those around you. The eventual truth “Divided we fall” logically comes to the surface. The protectionist movement sweeping the world, at the behest of the World Health Organization and its Industrial stakeholder partners, includes the largest corporate names on the planet. Hell, Bill Gates retired from a company which made him the richest guy in the world, to sign on to the bigger money business, they call “charity”? The stakeholder partnership devised of “protecting people from themselves” or the anti-personal autonomy movement. They used to call it Fascism although most of us didn’t like the harshness of that word, today it is the caring and gentle wisdom of “Public Health” and its stakeholder partners.
Shame on all of us, for buying in!
6 Dave // Feb 16, 2009 at 11:40 am
Trying to drink and not smoke is like trying to poop and not pee. You can smoke and not drink just like you can pee and not poop. But you can’t poop and not pee, and you can’t drink and not smoke.
7 paulie cannoli // Feb 16, 2009 at 11:49 am
Huh? I drink, but I don’t smoke. I’m sure there are many other people who drink alcohol but don’t use nicotine.
8 Michael J. McFadden // Feb 16, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I’d have to agree with both Paulie and Dave. Paulie is correct in a way: the Antismokers lie when they say they are being “forced to smoke” by being in a pub with smokers… it’s a lie that plays with language. Dave is correct that people who don’t normally smoke can drink just fine without smoking!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
9 Michael J. McFadden // Feb 16, 2009 at 12:40 pm
er… sorry… Dave was actually more saying that people who normally enjoy smoking PARTICULARLY want to smoke while drinking! Whoops!
:>
MJM
10 paulie cannoli // Feb 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Paulie is correct in a way: the Antismokers lie when they say they are being “forced to smoke” by being in a pub with smokers… it’s a lie that plays with language.
I didn’t say that. But…
Dave is correct that people who don’t normally smoke can drink just fine without smoking!
…I did say that.
Dave on the other hand said that anyone who drinks automatically has to smoke. Not true.
Now, it is true that when smoking is allowed at bars, of course most bars will allow smoking, because they do not want to lose their smoking customers. So that means that if I choose to
go out with several people, some of whom smoke, we will tend to end up in a smoky atmosphere, which I don’t care for.
So what that means in turn is that I don’t go out as often, or I go to a restaurant that serves alcohol and has a non-smoking section, rather than a bar, or I drink in my non-smoking motel room rather than going out.
Everyone has choices to make, and they should not dictate those choices on other people through government. It is no more OK for me to dictate my non-smoking preferences on smokers than it would be on them to dictate that I have to allow people to smoke in my business, if I had one.
11 Kevin // Feb 16, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I am compelled to respond to the joyful cheering and the prompting of more! more! We always need more. Perpetually in search of another McCarthyist restriction, targeting “smokers” and soon the “obese” and others, but in the end affecting us all;
The level of obscene exaggerations to the nth degree empowering the next exaggeration, has simply taken us to a level of group think insanity spewing from these lobby groups who like to call themselves “Public Health Authorities” The public needs to catch on to the latest rumor mill nonsense, and see it for what it really is.
Let’s start with the latest “estimated” mortality number used, as opposed to counting real bodies. Used not because the exact data of how many died because of diseases, which could possibly be caused by smoking, or numerous other “related” causes, is not readily available. The estimate is always preferred by the lobbies, because it always finds the largest possible number. A number which is double the number claimed using even their own chanting that “half of smokers would die of smoking related diseases” such as heart attacks and other diseases of the elderly. This is true because it is simply the normal death rate for everyone, applied to the number of smokers in the crowd. We could also by using the same .7% [.007] multiply by the other 80% of the population who don’t smoke; and declare not smoking is responsible for the balance of the 2.3 million deaths that occur in the United States every year.
They are more simplistically stating, by enabling the “450,000 smokers who die every year” that smoking does not actually increase the death rate, above that rate we see in the general population. By following the flawed example most of the population missed; would it be acceptable to apply .007 to any religious or racial group in our community and single them out with similar claims? They cost us this much, and we pay for it with our taxes!!! [don’t they as well?] A cost which is usually the total cost of all the diseases in that category, regardless of the reality; the rest of us also suffer from the same diseases and in most cases in identical numbers, or very close to the same numbers. No one thinks smoking is beneficial to anyone, however resorting to intolerance and bigotry to sell population intolerance, is not a route I can support.
What is missed by the public being awakened by this type of promotion is the impression, that it is smokers who are being targeted by the social marketing campaigns. The truth lies in looking a little closer. It is the larger populace and primarily the honest medical health professionals, who are being controlled. They are not talking to Smokers or the Tobacco Industry they are talking to the rest of us and bringing forth the arguments and language, we must use by their demand.
The demands they make in multi million dollar advertising campaigns, framed as, controlling elected officials, [or so it seems] are also, more often than not; financed by those same Public officials. Which is another much larger tax issue, someone needs to examine.
Not the smokers or the obese, or any of their other disease management categories. It is the larger populace who are being schooled, into the acceptance of being intolerant of those around you. The eventual truth “Divided we fall” logically comes to the surface. The protectionist movement sweeping the world, at the behest of the World Health Organization and its Industrial stakeholder partners, includes the largest corporate names on the planet. Hell, Bill Gates retired from a company which made him the richest guy in the world, to sign on to the bigger money business, they call “charity”? The stakeholder partnership devised of “protecting people from themselves” or the anti-personal autonomy movement. They used to call it Fascism although most of us didn’t like the harshness of that word, today it is the caring and gentle wisdom of “Public Health” and its stakeholder partners.
Shame on all of us, for buying in!
12 Kevin // Feb 16, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Perhaps the Public Health “survey says!” researchers could elaborate on the 450,000 number on the news vs the 2.3 million mortality rate number, both found by the same fraction .7% calculation and speak to their opinions in the expression of honesty and integrity by Lobby Groups. A huge embarrassment now, to”scientific integrity” as well as the many lawmakers who jumped on the bandwagon of “Protecting the children” [AKA the adult voters who elect them]
320 million x .007 = 2.24 million
AKA The current death rate.
20% of 2.3 million representing the current smoker proportion you would expect = 448,000?
64 million smokers [all of them] times the average death rate @ .007 = again 448,000
All smokers as opposed to half of smokers, will die of?
Are they telling us smoking is harmless?
Of course!!!
I have it; we could claim there were twice as many smokers 40 years ago that would be 128 million smokers in a 120 million population?
No, that doesn’t work either. {{{Groan}}}
I know! We could just claim this blasphemy, is just another example of the Tobacco Industry distorting the public’s perceptions.
That one usually works.
13 paulie cannoli // Feb 16, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Kevin (comments 5 and 11)
Any reason you posted that again?
14 paulie cannoli // Feb 17, 2009 at 1:51 am
Facebook
to me
show details 9:52 AM (13 hours ago)
Reply
Chris Spangle sent a message to the members of Libertarian Party of Indiana.
——————–
Subject: Two Events in Indy: After Hours and Smoking Ban Town Hall
There are two events in Indy to be aware of:
1. There is a hearing on breaking the Indy Smoking Ban Compromise. Pro-Smoking Ban proponents have been calling those who hold the libertarian view “extremists.” It is important to explain why we aren’t extreme, and why we are right.
Smoke Free Indy recently scored a victory when Republican Councilman Kent Smith went back on his free market principles, and adopted their view. He is holding three town hall meetings on this issue, giving us an opportunity to explain why a smoking ban for bars is wrong. The first is tonight.
• Location: Irvington Branch Library
5625 E. Washington Street
• Map for Directions:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://maps.google.com%2Fmaps%3Fq%3D5625%2BE.%2BWashington%2BStreet%2C%2BIndianapolis%2C%2BIN%26ie%3DUTF8%26split%3D0%26gl%3Dus%26ei%3DqnaZSeybGse_tgeGhKCgCw%26z%3D16%26iwloc%3Daddr
• Time: 5:30-7:30 pm. Be there Early. Smoke Free Indy is planning to fill up all the seats.
Call your City-Councilor and make your voice heard. The state is considering a total ban. Please call both of your statehouse reps, and make your view known. You can print out a petition, get signatures, and deliver it to them personally. That can be found at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.lpin.org
.
The Second event tonight is The Indy Libertarian After hours. We get together, imbibe, and have some fun!
It is in Greenwood at the Oaken Barrel. Facebook link below.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=61135474917
Thanks!
15 doug jenson // Feb 17, 2009 at 4:26 am
Perhaps a letter such as this would begin a positive dialog…
660,000 tax paying adult citizens in Alberta would like to go to private restaurants and drinking establishments to legally enjoy consuming tobacco, food and alcoholic beverages indoors. Sir… how are we going to make this happen?
Of course most likely… “we are not” will be the response to which I would respond… “Sir… you did not answer my question… perhaps you did not understand it… I will repeat”
660,000 tax paying adult citizens in Alberta would like to go to private restaurants and drinking establishments to legally enjoy consuming tobacco, food and alcoholic beverages indoors. Sir… how are we going to make this happen?
16 Leann // Oct 16, 2009 at 3:29 am
The thing I don’t understand is in this argument I have never heard anyone compare the danger to bar employees, to the danger of other jobs. I have not looked up the statistics but given the opprotunity to speak in public I would. Coal miners are not being told that their job is so physically dangerous that it must be stopped. Even builders who work on highrise buildings, or beauticians that handle fumes from bleach and hair spray. All of these workers face serious health risks but make the adult decision to either get a new job or suffer the risk of the work environment. I would think this is one of our best defences.
Leave a Comment