Brad Hollerbach is the Director of Information Technology for the Southeast Missourian. His opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the newspaper or its editorial board. He writes this blog primarily for his own amusement and to parody the absurdities of the world we live in. He lives with his wife and two cats that don't really care for one another in Cape.

Proposed Ban A Matter Of Choice, Period.

Posted Wednesday, March 30, 2011, at 12:00 AM

The advertising flyer arrived in my mailbox last week. I knew right away that it was very important from the headline on the document.

"Secondhand smoke is dangerous for everyone, period." is what the headline said.

You ALWAYS know a sentence is especially important when it has both a period AND spells out "period." Considering that the headline was alerting me to an apparently life-or-death situation I think "Secondhand smoke is dangerous for everyone, exclamation point!" would have been more appropriate.

A period just isn't suitable when danger is involved. For instance, no one knew danger better than Lassie. But when danger was afoot on the long-running TV series, Lassie's master Jeff never said, "Lassie, go get help." in a monotone voice like Ben Stein taking attendance in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Heck no! Jeff would yell, "Lassie, go get HELP, EXCLAMATION POINT!"

But perhaps the Citizens for a Smoke-Free Cape -- that's the group trying to ban smoking in all indoor public places within the city of Cape Girardeau and who reputedly paid for this flyer -- didn't want to be too pushy in their quest to clear the public air space in town. Frankly, an exclamation point can be construed by a lot of people as pushy punctuation.

The flyer I was mailed is a slick piece of work. I'm sure that the Campaign Workshop, a Washington DC-based PR firm who was reportedly paid $69,600 for their services to help get this local initiative passed is entirely responsible for the work.

I guess there aren't any area ad agencies -- or even in the Midwest -- that can handle this kind of campaign. It's just not their forte. When you're trying to sway the rubes, it's always best to go with professional manipulators you find ensconced in Washington, DC.

Those DC people might be schemers, well versed in creating political campaigns designed to woo the masses, but they aren't stupid. They probably know our market better than we know ourselves. That's why the photo on the flyer features what is presumably a mother and her two young sons with a subhead which says, "It's about our kids." The "it" in the sentence refers to the Cape Girardeau Smoke-Free Air Act.

A lot of Cape Girardeau citizens are suckers for their kids, any kids. If something is promoted locally for benefiting "the children" then they say, "By golly it must be OK." They don't necessarily evaluate the information they are being given. They just slap on those rose-colored glasses, re-adjust their blinders and happily believe whatever they've been told since after all it is for The Children and you must be a pariah if you disagree.

That's why I expect this ordinance to pass because the health of The Children is at risk. Or so we are being led to believe.

I don't disagree with the health risks of second hand smoke. Smoke of any kind is bad for you. Personally, I'd like to see leaf burning banned in the city and I wasn't too happy when a neighbor chose to dispose of a pile of old pressure treated fencing with a bonfire.

However, I do disagree with the attempt to make this legal habit appear to be a locally wide spread health epidemic. One who doesn't live here might assume that parents are puffing away while their kids play nearby in the McDonald's ball pit.

But that's not the case. Most local businesses already either restrict smoking on their premises or prohibit it all together. The exceptions are the bars downtown and most of the restaurants that also serve alcohol.

And it is adults, not children that those businesses primarily cater to. The adults who frequent these establishments are free to make their own decisions such as smoking a legal substance or choosing to work in a place where partaking in tobacco is not frowned upon. The managers of those businesses have also made a choice to permit smoking on their premises. And conversely some people choose not to frequent those businesses because they permit smoking.

I feel this whole issue boils down to the choices adults make and children have little to do with it no matter what the DC spin doctors try to make us think, period.

Comments

View 13 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.

Bloody, that ducks the issue. The market will decide. If no one goes to the smokey bar it will eventually close. When did america become such a big bunch of busy-bodies that they feel compelled to legislate our freedom away at every turn? I am allergic to smoke but I am more allergic to the way that folks are legislating us all into slavery law by law.

-- Posted by jcwill on Wed, Mar 30, 2011, at 7:27 AM
You're right, Nil. There are plenty of adult choices that are already regulated or outlawed. For instance, you can't just go shoot someone and take their iPhone because you like it.

Like yourself I too typically avoid smokey bars. I don't smoke and it makes me gasp.

But I view this topic as one that has already governed itself locally and there is no need for the city to enact actual laws. There are far more local businesses that prohibit smoking than do. If Rude Dog or one of the other downtown bars doesn't want my business because they permit smoking, I'm OK with that. I can go elsewhere and I do. I don't mind.

Your topless waitress analogy makes me laugh. I wonder if legally you could have shirtless waiters? I suppose that would probably violate some health code unless the guys were either clean-shaven or wore a full-body hairnet...

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Mar 30, 2011, at 8:41 AM
How many people in Cape have bought into the lies of the smoking nazis? The biggest help the smoking nazis gave us was saying, "Follow the Money!". We did and here is what we found; The tens of thousands of dollars that the Roberet Woods Johnson Foundation has filtered through he American Cancer Society into this self-serving campaign in a small city in S. E. MO. should give anyone pause. They have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to this effort nationally. The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation owns 5.4 BILLION DOLLARS IN JOHNSON AND JOHNSON STOCK! Their board consists of past Johnson and Johnson executives including the Surgeon General of the U. S. The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is a lobbying firm for Johnson and Johnson. Johnson and Johnson is the manufacturer of Nicoderm and other smoking cessation products and makes millions from them whenever a smoking ban goes into effect.

The American Cancer Society which was originally formed to donate money for cancer research and take dying children to Disneyland now has over 3 BILLION dollars in interest-bearing accounts and the two top executives make 1.3 milliom dollars a year! They have become a lobbyist for Big Pharma.

Stand-up Cape...What's Next?

-- Posted by riverdog on Wed, Mar 30, 2011, at 1:20 PM
Thanks for the grammar lesson, Brad. After all, it too waas for "the children."

By the way, Brad, where are these self proclaimed guardians of clean pure air when it comes to banning perfume (and aftershave lotion) in public building. I'm very allergic to that stuff. It makes me ill.

-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Mar 30, 2011, at 2:50 PM
Excellent point, Voyager.

I was at the health club a couple months ago when a lady got on the treadmill next to me doused in perfume. Thank goodness she only stayed there for five or ten minutes because she reeked. Surely that could be construed as a public health menace.

TFR

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Mar 30, 2011, at 3:03 PM
Say it ain't so, Brad. You were at a HEALTH club?

Scented candles cause allergic reactions in me, like most things with strong scents. (I spray cologne on the back of my shirt before putting it on so I don't smell it.) Air duct cleaners have told me that people burning scented candles is what keeps them in business.

But, move along, nothing to see here...

-- Posted by Just_Wondering1 on Wed, Mar 30, 2011, at 4:36 PM
Yes, Just_Wondering, I was at a Health Club. I would say I was at the "gym", but I think when they started serving lattes and smoothies at the front desk, members automatically lost the right to call it that.

TFR

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Mar 30, 2011, at 10:38 PM
Shocker...the chain smoker doesn't like the smoke-free ordinance.

-- Posted by southeast on Thu, Mar 31, 2011, at 8:59 AM
Southeast, I would assume that you are referring to me as the writer of this blog, but here's a newsflash:

I don't smoke. Never have. I don't care for second-hand smoke either.

But I care for overly-pious, busy-bodies even less and that is why I will be voting no next Tuesday.

Thanks for reading and jumping to conclusions.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Thu, Mar 31, 2011, at 9:07 AM
You're very welcome. Seems funny that you say you don't smoke. You have actually interviewed me in the past and I remember the distinct smell of carcinogenic toxins. Perhaps you had just come from one of the Cape establishments that "protects" non-smokers by offernig a non-smoking section.

-- Posted by southeast on Thu, Mar 31, 2011, at 11:03 AM
Southeast, I think you must be confusing me for Scott Moyers, one of the newspaper's reporters who has been covering the smoking ban story. He did previously smoke, but quit at the end of February.

I have not interviewed anyone since the 1980s when I was in college so if I did happen to interview you for a class 20 plus years ago, my breath must have been far more memorable to you than any reputed conversation between us was to me.

TFR

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Thu, Mar 31, 2011, at 11:19 AM
You are probably right. Sorry, Brad. The cerebrum doesn't work like it used to.

-- Posted by southeast on Thu, Mar 31, 2011, at 12:18 PM
Great analogy, Bloody. I don't expect to win. People long ago made up their minds on this issue. However, I do find it fun to stir-the-pot, so to speak.

TFR

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Thu, Mar 31, 2011, at 8:29 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires a subscription.