I have long been a critic of legislation that forces citizens to make healthy choices in their eating or drinking or lifestyle, including the “Big Gulp” laws like those in New York City. Once politicians start to dictate health choices, we have seen the desire to become insatiable as more and more “bad choices” are banned. One such example occurred in my home city, Chicago, when the city council banned smokeless tobacco (as well as raised Chicago’s smoking age from 18 to 21). While the age change will create the anomaly of having 18 year olds subject to the draft in war but not able to choose to smoke, it is the smokeless tobacco that is the most problematic element. There is no second-hand chew health problem for other people as there is for smoking. This is merely an effort to force people to make the choices that the government deems health or correct.
The city council also outlawed discounts and slapped a $6 million tax on tobacco products.
The ban on chew at professional and amateur sporting events, including baseball stadiums, resulted in a blast from Chicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon who correctly noted that (while he quit chewing 15 years ago) “I’m into personal freedoms. I don’t understand the point with all that. Just eradicate tobacco period if you’re going to go that route. I’m not into over-legislating the human race, so for me I’ll just have to listen and learn.” Amen, St. Joe, Amen.
Chicago is the fourth city to enact a ban on smokeless tobacco –joining Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The entire state of California will have a ban on smokeless tobacco go into effect in 2017. The question is why. This is a lawful product like smoking tobacco. People have a right to make choices about their lifestyle so long as they do not harm others. That is why I always supported the bans on smoking in public areas due to the second-hand smoke research. That is an externalized harm. What is the externalized harm of smokeless tobacco?
The Chicago ban will cost between $100 to $250 for each violation and teams will face a $2,500 fine for the third violation of the law within a yearand a 60-day suspension of their license to operate.
I happen to deeply dislike smoking and I find chewing tobacco disgusting. I also do not question the link to serious health problems like cancer. However, that should be the subject of an educational campaign by the government and MLB. Yet, in the end, people need to be able to make choices in our society rather than go down the path to paternalistic legislation regulating our good and bad choices.
Good lord JT, evidently you have never sat on, stepped in and tracked or seen the brow spit drool up close and personal. But then it’s probably acceptable for one of your progeny to pull out a nice long green booger of snot then suck it off the finger or wipe it on a sleeve.
The great thing about the booger is that it’s not carcinogenic and actually helps the immune system. And the kid is not polluting his environment since he isn’t spitting it out or using non-biodegradable styrofoam cups. A side benefit is that the overweight fast food eaters lose their appetite.
Oh wait …a booger vs gooey brown spit….tied…both probably work to reduce fatty food intake. Although the latter works to reduce population growth.
God I still remember knocking over a spittoon
How does one balance the cost to society as a whole from the questionable behavior of some individuals? While imbibing in the indulgence of smokeless tobacco is clearly one’s choice, others at a public event are not given an equal choice to decline inhaling the smoke. “Freedom of choice” is a fine and worthy concept where society is not expected to pick up the costs. In a sense, it is yet another case of “privatizing costs and socializing profits.” And in such a situation, the society becomes the loser.
(music)
Who ca tooka my soda cracker?
Does your momma chaw tobacca?
If your momma chaws tobacca, then
Who ca tooka myyyy soooodaa cracker?
I agree with bambam above.
But I think while chewing tobacco is gross and should be banned due to the spitting, I do believe that America should lift the bans on meth, heroin, and pot. We have too many people on Earth and need to allow the suicidals to have their method of death at early age to be legal. Suicide should be painless. Heroin overdose is the best way to go.
Beth @11:49 am and @12:50 pm
Great comments and insight into a subject that others, including JT, have failed to inspect and examine with any modicum of wisdom. It is surprising how such purportedly educated and intelligent individuals fail to grasp the multitude of ways in which these behaviors affect all of us. Thank you for being a voice of reason.
I am not sure why this is still a problem. The NCAA prohibits smokeless tobacco for its athletes. While they were making the change over, the baseball players were chewing bubble gum and tobacco at the same time. It really was disgusting!
Jim22. What on earth does your response mean? If it means that I try to be conscious of what behaviors of mine might greatly impact others in a huge variety of ways, then I plead guilty. But specially relating to tobacco use, really, I love breathing toxic fumes, stepping in tar spit, being exposed to all kinds of bacteria and germs from the phlegm , and then footing the bill for the 400,000+ tobacco deaths every year. I’m a saint.
Beth – could we get a cite for the 400,000 tobacco deaths each year?
Happy to oblige with statistics. The number is actually 480,000+
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/sgr50-chap-12.pdf#page13
Beth – thanks for the cite. The do seem to have thrown in everything but the kitchen sink to get that number, but they did make it.
So, chewing tobacco poses no problem to anyone other than the one using the product at sporting events, in particular? Is that what you think, JT? Okay. I’ll chalk this one up to the fact that, as a big-city-Chicago-boy, your failure to fully comprehend what transpires, when those around you partake in this vile habit, is a result of your lack of exposure to the wonders of the activity; however, I must admit, I am still surprised at your shortsighted view regarding the topic of banning chewing tobacco at sporting events. I can only assume that the vast majority of students and professors, who walk the hallowed halls of your law school, aren’t those who actually indulge in the above-referenced habit, thereby, denying you the privilege and honor of coming into contact, personally, with the pitfalls of this fantastic and harmless activity. Allow me to remind you of a few things. These sporting events, usually, take place in enclosed arenas, where bathrooms are often located a good five minute walk away. Do you, JT, reasonably expect that those attendees, with the urgent need to spit, black, runny, putrid juices, from their mouths, are going to take the time to hold those bodily fluids, leave the game and take a hike, to the nearest bathroom, each and every time that they have the urge to do so? Seriously? Do you actually expect that those who indulge will, faithfully, tote around a receptacle, into which to spit those disgusting bodily fluids, so that they don’t, instead, spit in the stadium? You must not be familiar with the activity of chewing tobacco, JT, whatsoever, for you to make such an imbecilic comment about how this has no impact on others, especially, others located in an enclosed area. Those who choose to engage in such a disgusting and unsanitary habit, do, in fact, affect others. I completely understand that the ensuing gum disease, tooth loss, throat and mouth cancers, are all risks that tobacco chewers gladly and freely opt to embrace. In an age, however, where multiple viruses and diseases are spread through contact with bodily fluids, it is not such a difficult leap to claim that this is very much of a public health issue–impacting everyone at the stadium and not just those who partake in the habit. Rights? How about my right to attend a sporting event, in a relatively clean and safe environment–one which limits my exposure to blobs of phlegm? Too much to ask? Well, I don’t think so.
So “Mom and Dad” don’t believe we are mature enough to choose what goes into our bodies and yet these same folks want to open up the franchise to everyone. That makes perfect sense…if you want to make government dependency permanent.
Beth, Nothing you do fits into your almism. It must be nice to be so perfect.
https://thesmokingnun.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/no_spitting_sign.jpg
Tobacco, in all forms, is NOT a singular activity that affects no one else. Tobacco use weighs very heavily on the public at large in the form of health care costs, higher insurance premiums, toxic litter, poisoned air and ground spit. To suggest that limiting tobacco, smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes should not be controlled substancesbgoes against all manner of policy for the public good. Wrong stance, Mr. Turley.
I don’t have a problem with raising the smoking age to 21; I would also like to see the drinking age raised to 25. It is well documented that persons in their late teens and early 20s have not developed emotionally to the point that they can make the best decisions. The draft age comparison is meaningless. There is no draft and hasn’t been one in more than 40 years. Plus females are not subject to the draft, and of the male population, there were innumerable exemptions. I can’t imagine today’s millennials at the mercy of a drill instructor. That would make for a hilarious movie!
Bacon will be banned soon. Then beer.
Notice that each of the cities are run by demoncrats. Next year everyone will have to have their heads shaved and bar codes tatooed on their scalps.
A very difficult issue for me in light of how young one of the most gentle, humble, and great athletes I’ve ever seen, Tony Gwynn, was when he died of a horrible cancer that basically ate up everything between his mandible and nose. He was the guy that rejected salary increases so he could stay here in San Diego. I never saw Tony Gwynn without a smile on his face.
Like street drugs and alcohol, once we outlaw smokeless tobacco, as Prof. Turley relates it becomes “insatiable.”
Notice that each of those banning cities are pinko – the future of our country under the dems.
Also notice that the libs managed to sneak in a tax while “doing good”. Just coincidental.
I’ve never had a beer in my life. I find drinking harmful and disgusting. It should also be banned. How long before the libtards regulate our lives to the point where the things we are aren’t allowed to do is greater than the things we are allowed to do?
I assume you meant 18 year olds would be subject to the draft.
Otherwise, I agree . This is unnecessary legislation.
Anything to distract from Rahm killing young black men.
Progressives in action!!!!