Davis County’s Chief Nanny and Number One Scold
Davis County Health Director Lewis Garrett received two mentions on the front page of yesterday’s Davis County Clipper for his work as Davis County’s number one personal behavior cop.
Garrett wants to make it illegal to light up in public throughout Davis County.
Elected officials, and the public in general, are pretty receptive to the idea of a smoking ban in public parks and other outdoor venues, Davis County Health Director Lewis Garrett told members of the board of health Tuesday morning,
A committee of health department staff and board members have worked on putting together an ordinance which would ban smoking in public outdoor areas in Davis County.
Garrett will now take a draft ordinance back to the mayors and other elected officials making up COG (the Davis County Council of Governments) before the board of health votes on it.
Emphasis mine.
This is a stupid idea. Second hand smoke has never been scientifically proven to be a health risk in the first place but to ban smoking outside in a public place can’t possibly be justified by fears for public health. What harm occurs when we allow smoking outside? Why do we need the police cracking down on yet another personal vice which doesn’t hurt anyone other than the smoker?
For Garrett the regulation of personal behavior is old hat. He’s the joker behind the rules in Davis County which state that a kid can’t go to a tanning salon unless their parents are with them. Since his rules took affect tanning salon owners throughout Davis County have complained that they have lost business to neighboring counties which haven’t adopted such silly regulations.
Davis County director of health Lewis Garrett is conceding that forcing parents to come in every time their teen uses a tanning salon won’t work until the regulations in all counties are consistent.
So, the Board of Health is backing off and allowing parents to consent to a number of sessions before they must reauthorize their approval.
“It’s a small price to pay to set the standard,” Garrett told board members on Tuesday.
Emphasis mine again.
Perfect. Davis County enacts draconian regulations on our personal behavior and when the negative repercussions quickly show up Garrett says “its a small price to pay to set the standard”. I’d argue that it isn’t a small price to pay. I don’t want Davis County to be the standard setter for restrictive nanny-state government in Utah.
Why has this man taken it upon himself to regulate personal behavior to the point where parents are being hasseled because their teenagers want to fake bake and smokers can’t go outside by themselves for a toke? People like Garrett only have a job because we fall for their scare tactics. Our governments need to relax a bit and cool down their desires to regulate our behavior…even when citizens are smoking or fake baking. Whatever happened to live and let live?
Ugly government regulation of personal appetites and behaviors is part and parcel with Republican domination of government. Hopefully Davis County residents will do something about it.
UPDATE 3/19/2007:
This morning’s Deseret News contains an article about Garrett’s “non-controversial” proposal.
Notices will be placed in local newspapers and in public places, and the health department will take written and verbal comment for two weeks, Garrett said. But he doesn’t know if many people will comment.
“It’s not a controversial issue,” he said.
Sadly Garrett is probably correct. Most smokers in this state have been shamed into thinking that their behavior is not only harmful to themselves but sinful. In an environment like that there probably won’t be many willing to make a public comment against this type of lunacy.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I really think you’re coming down on the wrong side of whose rights we should be more concerned about.
Let’s totally remove the secondhand smoke argument. Do I have a right to not experience the effects of someone else’s smoking habits in a public place? I would arguable say yes to this question. The smell is disgusting and gets all over my clothes and in my hair. Any visit to a place with smokers invariably ends in taking a shower and doing laundry that same night. I also end up with a terrible scratchy throat if I’ve been around a smoker for more than about 3 minutes or so and that lasts the rest of the day. The short of it is that I suffer several negative effects based on someone else’s addiction and personal choice.
Where I get sketchy is why it is that smokers have more of a right to light up than I have to not experience the effects of it. I don’t think that’s right. I don’t have the right to subject someone else to the negative effects of my personal choices and neither should they. There are good libertarian arguments to be made against these restrictions, but they aren’t strong enough to outweigh the right to not be subjected to it.
Comment by Jesse Harris — March 16, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Jesse,
Of course you have a right not to experience the smoking of someone else in a public place. One effective way to do this is to take two steps back from the person who is smoking outside. This method can prevent hours of needless showering and laundry duty. Who else would you legislate out of public places because they offend you? Should we kick out all the strikingly ugly people so you don’t have to see them? Maybe we should use government’s police powers to force all stinky people out of public places so you don’t have to shower or wash your clothes quite so often. Sorry…concerns about possible stink contamination from a smoker who is outdoors and who you are not forced to be around are relatively petty when compared to government efforts to use force to prevent smokers from lighting up.
Your standards for who is allowed to do what in public seem pretty draconian. Have you ever considered moving to Singapore?
Comment by Jeremy — March 16, 2007 @ 11:26 am
… of course there’s also the significant day-long discomfort I described. Cigarette smoke drifts pretty far too. I often smell it from well over 10 feet away. When someone is smoking right outside a door or on a path I need to walk on, I can’t avoid it without significant effort on my part. Again, I don’t see how their convenience outweighs mine.
I’m also giving you the benefit of a doubt when it comes to the effects of secondhand smoke. Having experienced such lasting negative effects from short exposure, I’m disinclined to believe that it’s a myth. I’ve also see what cigarettes will deposit when smoked in an area frequently. The nastiest sight you’ll ever see is the computer of an indoor smoker. There’s a thick layer of sticky ash inside the case and the entire PC is yellowed with nicotine deposits. It takes a lot of 409 to get that off. Too bad I can’t do the same for my lungs.
Hyperbole aside, you still haven’t explained how my right to avoid potential health risks is outweighed by someone else’s right to smoke when and where they please. You might as well defend the right to pee in a public pool because, hey, you don’t have to get in the water.
Comment by Jesse Harris — March 16, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Jesse, I feel the same way about Ford F-350 diesel fumes as you feel about cigarette smoke. Can we ban them too?
Comment by Part of the Plan — March 16, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Woaaaah horsie!!!
While I believe that public policy should put a general effort behind reducing my family’s exposure to health risks, I don’t see the great need to ban smoking in outdoor public places. I don’t think an occasional breath of secondhand smoke, diesel fumes or drying paint will adversely affect anybody.
However, I disagree with you Jeremy on your comment that secondhand smoke has not been scientifically proven a health threat.
Here you’ll find a list of studies from such sources as the American Journal of Epidemiology, Toxicological Sciences Journal, European Heart Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American College of Cariology, JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) and more on the clinical health risks of secondhand smoke (SHS).
http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/2/546
Here you’ll find a list of studies linking SIDS, asthma, and exercise capacity to SHS from Archives of Disease in Childhood
http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/88/12/1086
If you finish those and still want more, let me know.
I have a child with asthma. Through that experience I have become acutely aware that even though George Burns can smoke until the day he dies, many people are not that lucky with air contaminants. Don’t be fooled by the numbers of people who have perfect lungs and can live in a smoking home without a visible health change. When my boy enters a place with cigarette smoke there is an immediate physical change. Face turns red, breathing changes, etc. I felt bad telling the smoking mother of one friend of his that my son couldn’t come over to play because he has asthma. I was not surprised when that friend showed up on our doorstep 2 months later saying, “Guess what, we found out I have asthma too.”
When my father was diagnosed with cancer, his physician first asked, “Do you smoke?” No. His next question, which surprised me, was, “Did you grow up in a smoking home?” Yes. That physician, based on clinical studies, based my father’s cancer at age 60 on living 16 years in a smoking home. Given the scientific evidence of hundreds of studies, I believe him.
Comment by cody — March 17, 2007 @ 6:21 am
I’m with Jeremy on the effects of second hand smoke. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12587
Someone needs to tell Lewis Garrett that smoking is healthier than fascism. http://store.bureaucrashcontraband.com/sf1t.html
At times like these, I think it is important to remember the wise political philosophy of Joseph Smith to teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves. If people want to go into smoky establishments, then by all means let them. If people want to eat fatty foods, then by all means let them. When will Garrett tackle the problem of all of the fat people people in Davis county? These people are living unhealthy lifestyles and worse, they are passing on their unhealthy lifestyles to their children. Doesn’t Garrett care about chubby kids? When will he start mandating a certain regimen of diet and exercise?
Comment by Daniel — March 17, 2007 @ 8:15 am
Cody, thank you for your heartfelt comments. While I am entirely sympathetic for your and the other hundreds of thousands of parents with ashmatic children, I ask again: are we to outlaw every noxious gas that our society and culture deems necessary to maintain our profligate standard of living? If we outlaw cigarette smoke, may we also outlaw diesel fumes, and gas refinery byproduct, and (according to your Republican hero politicians) cattle flatulence? Who’s to say cigarette smoke (outdoors) is worse than the farts of a hundred million cows?
Comment by Part of the Plan — March 17, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
No argument with you Ed. I actually agree with you that outdoor cigarette smoke is an almost nonexistent threat.
‘I don’t see the great need to ban smoking in outdoor public places. I don’t think an occasional breath of secondhand smoke, diesel fumes or drying paint will adversely affect anybody.’
I just was countering Jeremy’s claim that secondhand smoke is not a proven threat (indoors).
As for flatulent cows, I spent 8 years in Cache Valley, with it’s famous inversions. It was pretty disgusting to hear that one test showed one inversion there to be 25-35% flatulence from cattle. Love that diary air!!
Comment by cody — March 18, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Cody,
That is the funniest and grossest comment ever left on this site. Thank you! While I agree with Dan on second hand smoke I’ll concede the point for argument’s sake that indoor second hand smoke can be dangerous in order to continue on to my main contention about the absurdity of any effort to ban smoking outdoors.
Jesse,
I’m sorry to hear about your problems with cigarette smoke. It sounds like you have an atypical issue that you should probably talk to a doctor about. Most people don’t react as you do when walking within 10 feet of a lit cigarette. If we decide to base our laws on ensuring that people with conditions like yours never encounter discomfort because of smokers, women with extra perfume, flatulent bovine, Ford f-350 diesel trucks or oil refineries (thanks ed) we will have made a significant portion of everything anyone ever wants or needs to do illegal. Your complaint is trivial compared to my freedom to light up (or my freedom to benefit from any of those other possible offenses) and the burden of solving your problem shouldn’t be placed on my head by a government dictate. Your problem is abnormal and it isn’t the purpose of government to make laws forcing the rest of us to compensate in an unreasonable way for your abnormality. Was that a direct enough response for you?
Comment by Jeremy Manning — March 18, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
I wish Utah would concentrate on that brown cloud-excuse me that is in denver-I mean that inversion or whatever it is.
I’m still in wonderment of it’s existence and how adaptable y’all are to it.
I would bet, at the south jordan race track no less, that the inversion is more a traumatic experience that someone taking a smoke break on state street especially for someone with asthma!
It is kind of amazing during the inversion that it is possible to get above, like when on the slopes, and then have to come back to that toxic mess to stay at one of the many hotels in the valley ripping off the touristas, and not allowing any smoking in the rooms.
Isn’t politically correct non-smoking and the naturally occuring toxic mess just a little too much.
I imagine that some people with respiratory problems, actually most people in that huge valley, may say a little extra prayer for a windy day or a torrential downpour so they may have a little break from gasping while living in that wonderful little toxic cloud that hangs in the heavens for weeks and even months at a time.
Good luck Utah!
Bob in Petaluma
Comment by Paintmequick — March 26, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Scott N. Hersh said “You can choose not to smoke-but you can’t choose not to breathe”.
Supreme court against the current goper interpretation of clean air!
I wonder what Scott was talking about.
I wonder what IPP is going to do now that the supreme court caught up with their mighty plans.
Utahns may turn blue not because of a change in political belief but from the obvious pollution they tolerate to try and stay red.
Bob in Petaluma
Comment by Paintmequick — April 3, 2007 @ 3:13 pm