In regards to all the banning going on in the name of public health these days, maybe we should compile a list of those companies, restaurant chains, etc., that are removing trans fats from their products and making their establishments smoke-free without government intervention, then create a flashy flyer for the propaganda section that brings attention to this fact, that businesses are voluntarily responding to the changing tide of public opinion in a big way. I mean, when you have McDonald’s and KFC vowing to cut trans fats from their menus, you know something drastic is happening, and every state mandate just seems senseless at that point. This would be a good way to highlight that.

As far as smoke-free restaurant chains in the U.S. go, these are the ones I know of: Applebee’s, Bob Evans, Boston Market, Burger King, Hardee’s, McDonald’s, Panera Bread, Ruby Tuesday’s, Schlotzky’s, Starbuck’s, Taco Bell, Tim Horton’s, plus there’s plenty of local establishments in all the major (and non-major) cities across the country voluntarily going smoke-free. Here’s a list from the ANR site: http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=452

Companies cutting trans fats from their products: Frito Lay, KFC (as noted above), McDonald’s (as noted above), Nabisco, Walt Disney Co.—there’s plenty others I’m forgetting.

If governmental paternalism is akin to a "nanny" state, then this is the equivalent of Shaken Baby Syndome:

At the mayor’s urging this week, New York’s Board of Health voted to ban restaurant use of artificial trans fats, those liquid oils made solid through hydrogenation and found in all manner of fried, baked and processed foods. Many of these products aren’t particularly healthy, but then neither are many products people enjoy that contain sugar and caffeine, substances that New York hasn’t outlawed. At least not yet.

* The Bloomberg Diet [WSJ]

 [Crossposted at Fresh Politics]

There are, without a doubt, some people who shouldn’t take jobs in smoke-friendly bars or restaurants: people with allergies or chronic lung or heart problems, for example. But we cannot limit employment opportunities to the many because of the unique health conditions of the few. If we did, we’d have to ban a lot more than smoking.

Pet stores and veterinary offices, for starters: I’m allergic to cats, you see. Florists. Botanical gardens. Zoos.

There would be no concert pianists, no cellists, no harpists, to be sure: they discriminate against the arthritic. No baseball or basketball or soccer–think of all the amputees discriminated against.

No window washers or bungee jumping instructors–acrophobia, you see. No lifeguards or deep sea divers–hydrophobia, very scary stuff.

I don’t mean to make light of people’s health problems, I really don’t. But I do mean to make light of the notion that in the name of all-inclusiveness, we have to ban legal activities, legal activities that harm no one except for those who willingly step into harm’s way. It confounds me, but more than that, it depresses me. An America where everyone has to be just as qualified as everyone else at everything by legislative mandate is a truly horrifying thought–say goodbye to individuality.

Absolute uniformity is the new black.

A lot of talk in the comments seems now to be focused on the people who are, because of some unique circumstance or another, "forced" to take a job in a bar or restaurant. While "force" is not necessarily the word I’d choose, this is the only even vaguely compelling argument I’ve heard from smoking ban advocates so far: a lot of people, specifically recent immigrants and students, have few options as to where they can work.

Unfortunately though, the argument that these people are victims of their circumstances isn’t based in reality.

As one of the commenter’s circumstances reveals (and my own circumstance as well), people who take transitional or temporary jobs in the service industry simply aren’t exposed to ETS long enough or in high enough concentrations for it to affect their long-term health: they finish their schooling and move on or they gain the necessary job experience to find other work.

Now, according to the testimony of a gentelman from the American Cancer Society, it takes decades for ACTIVE smokers to develop chronic or fatal conditions from smoking. Anyone who spends enough time in the service industry to be subject to the risks of secondhand smoke has to be there for at least that long: decades. Clearly anyone who is there for decades is there by choice, not because their circumstances require it. If we allow people to choose risky life-long careers in other fields, certainly career service industry professionals should be given the same choice.

Being a career waiter or bartender isn’t a circumstance someone is forced into, anymore than being a career lion tamer or hypertension prone executive is.

Is it true that the options are slim for some people? Yes. Is it true that the best option for a lot of people is a temporary job in a bar or restaurant? Yes. But are those people at any real risk from ETS from a stint in the service industry for a few years? Absolutely not.

-Brooke Oberwetter 

Sunday nights are typically slow for most bars and restaurants, so it’s the night that their employees tend to hit the town for various industry nights.

We’ll be visiting one such event on Sunday night to visit with some local employees of bars and restaurants. If you’d like to join us, we have a few slots left (the place we’re going has a door list, so we’re limited in how many people we can take). E-mail me at brooke@bantheban.org for more info.

We’ll have a petition specifically for service industry employees, and we’ll continue collecting postcards from patrons as well.

If you work in the service industry and know of other Industry Night events, please let us know!

Cruise DC in style with a new Ban the Ban bumper sticker!

SmokeFreeDC is fundraising right now to get bumper stickers printed up, but ours have already been donated, ordered, and delivered so grab one today!

You can get one just by sending your name and mailing address to brooke@bantheban.org.

Donations for a bumper sticker aren’t required, but we’d certainly appreciate it!

Thanks to everyone who went out on Friday to show their opposition to a one-size-fits-all smoking ban. Having stopped by several of the locations where our teams were, I’m just astounded by the overwhelming positive response!

If you’re new to Ban the Ban and only just recently found out about the pending smoking ban, welcome! If you’d like to join our e-mail alert list, please let me know by sending me an e-mail at brooke@bantheban.org with "subscribe" in the subject line. We’ll be sure to keep you posted about all of our upcoming events.

Many of us who hit the town last night were asked how donations could be made–right here on the website via Paypal–see the donation button to the left. We’ve got more planned for the summer, but we need your help to do it, so donate now!

-Brooke Oberwetter

Good piece in the WaPo on another manifestation of the nanny state jihadis: doling out tickets for jaywalking. There are a few juicy quotes:

"If there was no crime, everyone had a job and affordable housing, then the city can start being paternalistic," said Kevin Cuddy, 33, of Logan Circle, who was handed a warning Friday for jaywalking on 16th Street NW, even though 10 seconds were remaining on the crosswalk indicator when he stepped off the sidewalk. D.C. police say it is against the law to begin crossing the street when the red hand appears, regardless of the time left. [...] "For a city of liberty, I don’t know what’s happening," said C. Peter "Buzz" Beler, longtime owner of the Prime Rib on K Street NW and an opponent of the proposed smoking ban. He recently had to pay an electronic speeding ticket but got away scot-free when he jaywalked Thursday. [...] "People are promiscuous about giving up other people’s rights," said Eugene O’Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor who is a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "Individually, it’s hard to argue against these laws. The problem is when you aggregate it. It’s a creeping sort of thing." [...] "In reaction to the lawlessness of the past, there is a sense that any expression of spontaneity has been wiped out," said Joel Kotkin, author of "The City: A Global History." "You don’t want people smoking crack on K Street, but you have to wonder at what point do you feel like you’re in Disneyland."

At the rate we’re going, pretty soon we’ll all be teetotaling, fearful, effete people, terrified at the notion of having to figure out how to cross the street on our own or whether hanging out in smoky bars is appropriate for us. No doubt the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and its apparatchiks at Smokefree DC will be pleased.

But does that sound like America to you?

The comments are acting up again. If you can’t post, we apologize. We’re working on correcting the problem.

If you haven’t e-mailed your council member yet, now is the time to do so. If you don’t live in DC but you frequent DC bars and restaurants, your voice should still be heard. Let them know you’ll take your business elsewhere.

If the DC Council is willing the hear testimony from folks who live outside of DC about the benefits of a smoking ban, as they did at the public hearing, they should listen to non-DC residents who actually live in the area when they say a smoking ban is bad.