On June 14 the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners will be voting on legislation banning use of tobacco products in all public buildings in the county, including restaurants and bars. This is similar to legislation that the City of Decatur passed a couple years ago. However, DeKalb County’s legislation bans ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES which have no secondhand smoke because they are SMOKE-FREE !
Please call and e-mail your two county commissioners – your district commissioner and your at-large commissioner – to tell them that you are one of their constituents and to request that references to electronic cigarettes be eliminated from the ban, or better yet, that they be specifically exempted from the restrictions. Keep calling until you can actually speak with them. E-mail them supportive, authoritative, short links or articles. Also, we are looking for at least one person to actually go to the meeting at 9 AM on Tuesday the 14th, preferably “smoking” an e-cig, to show them and tell them that there is no harm to others and much less harm to yourself than smoking regular cigarettes.
Here is a link to find your commissioner contact information and what to say : http://www.casaa.org/CTA/article.asp?articleID=163&l=a&p=
I remember studying this concept in economics at the University of Florida. When I raised my hand to say something with negative utility was not worth public funding, the teacher said that even though something has, as in this appeal, “much less harm to yourself than smoking regular cigarettes”, it still deserves support because it is better than alternatives. I still say, “Nonsense.” In medieval days, even the King of England, a non-scientist, recognized that people died of smoking. So support education or something useful, not smoking.
Not sure how attempting to prevent an unnecessary erosion of our liberties can be construed as “supporting smoking”, or “public funding of a negative utility”. For one thing, the whole point of electronic cigarettes is that they do not produce smoke! For another, the only funding, public or otherwise, associated with this legislation is to enforce a ban on smoking.
But I agree with your main point, someone choosing between smoking or not smoking would certainly be better off NOT smoking. More importantly, a close libertarian friend of mine who smokes agrees with you and the medieval King of England that he would have been better off not starting. However, he is an addict and he knows it and knowing it does not seem to help him quit.
I personally have never smoked a cigarette in my life (my father told me not to start because stopping was the hardest thing he ever did – and I listened), but if we don’t fight for others rights to do things we don’t plan to do ourselves, who will defend us when our favorite rights are in jeopardy? And there are some tobacco addicts in our chapter who may be motivated to fight for their right to drag on a fake cigarette at a bar or restaurant in order to get a dose of nicotine. Have some pity. After all, what harm is it to you if someone at the next table is sucking on a little white cylinder?
BTW, we are doing what we can to support reform of our county education system, through our non-partisan committee, Friends of DeKalb Schools. Our first priority is to get DCSS to post the check register online every month. Anything you can do to support this effort would be appreciated.