Letter to the New York Times, June 10, 1995

June 10, 1995

Editor The New York Times 229 W. 43 St. New York, NY 10036

Re: Alan Stillman: Let the Diner Decide, June 7, 1995

The Times' choice of op-ed pieces continues to present the Clean Air Act as an unenforceable, revenue-threatening hardship for restaurateurs, while ignoring the medical issue and the plentiful scientific data which show such bans police themselves and do not detract from restaurant income.

The same anti-ban arguments were levied against the 1988 Clean Air Act, and failed to manifest--yet the Times has a short memory, and continues to print these spurious sophistries ad infinitum, as if they hadn't been exposed and vitiated long ago. The Times also ignores the indications that much of the present foment is financed by the tobacco industry, as reported by The New York Observer ("The Great 1995 New York Smoke-Out Screen," May 29, 1995)--a newspaper with some investigative responsibility.

Stillman's tired old fallacies gain their power solely through repetition and ignorance.

  • Stillman claims NYC treats adults as children since it "prevent(s) adults from smoking." This is a classic mis-framing of the argument. Just as laws prevent drinking alcohol or spitting tobacco in certain places, the NYC law prohibits smoking only in specified public places. No one has an inalienable right to befoul others' air anytime and anywhere they feel like it.

  • Smokers are "aggravated," Stillman says, and to illustrate the law's unenforceability he presents the hypothetical example of a smoker defying the law to the point of police intervention. The example is hypothetical because it never happens. Most smokers graciously understand that others have a right to be free of their smoke. Even the most obtuse are hardly trivial enough to defy the law unless they have the restaurant's active collaboration.

  • Stillman claims restaurants are "chafing" under the law. The New York Observer reports that the National Smokers' Alliance funded a mailing to NYC's 10,000 restaurants urging them to attend a Dept. of Health hearing. 100 people showed up, or 1% of those who got the notice. This is a phenomenally tiny if vocal (and well-funded) minority. Many restaurateurs/managers are pleased they no longer have to mediate fights or deal with the smoke and dirt. And as New Yorkers can readily see, business is booming.

  • Stillman avers that mokers will go to restaurants in Nassau County. Hardly likely, except in bordering areas, but Nassau is working on its own smoke-free bill, as are many areas in New Jersey and upstate New York. Previously, such bills had been stalled by the more fearsome argument that smokers would go to restaurants in New York City. That shibboleth no longer holds, so those communities will soon be smoke-free also.

  • What about foreign visitors, many of whom smoke? California has been smokefree 6 months now, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Aspen, Colorado for longer, and they all have very high concentrations of foreign visitors. There have been no reports of a diminution because of smoking bans.

  • Why not let the restaurants decide, Stillman asks. Why not just post a sign that says smoking is allowed, and let the diner choose? Good idea. We'll post that sign right next to the one that says the owner's pet dogs run loose in the kitchen, and just under the one that says the chef likes to chop meat and salads on the same board, or doesn't believe in rodent control. There'll be lots of such signs for diners to wade through, as each restaurant decides for itself what health regulations it sees fit to follow.

    • All these arguments were dragged out in 1988, and are dragged out everywhere in the nation where there's a ban. Their dissemination is often financed by those more interested in cigarette sales than in the public's health.

    If the Times had devoted the proper amount of coverage to last year's hearings, or even could remember the city's recent history, its readers and editors would be able to see these agitations for what they are, and the New York Times would be too embarrassed to lend its pages to this well-heeled disinformation campaign.

    Gene Borio


    ***********************
  • ©1996 Gene Borio, Tobacco BBS (212-982-4645). WebPage: http://www.tobacco.org).Original Tobacco BBS material may be reprinted in any non-commercial venue if accompanied by this credit

    • ***********************
    Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
    ***********************
    Return to Communications from the Front
    ***********************