Opinion: Don't legislate social change in the Constitution

Like most non-smokers I personally dislike cigarette smoke and look forward to a time when the use of tobacco products has died away entirely. However, the freedom-loving Libertarian's approach to effect this or any other social change is to use the power of persuasion to influence the outcome, not to pass a law, and certainly not to amend the state Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution should be left to defining the powers and limitations of government. It's not the place to implement specific legislation, no matter how noble the intent. Any attempt to amend the Constitution to effect social change is an underhanded tactic and a blatant circumvention of the representative form of government that is so deeply cherished by all freedom-loving Americans.

No to a constitutional amendment to ban indoor smoking!

No to a constitutional amendment for the humane treatment of farm animals!

No to a constitutional amendment allowing drug users the option of treatment over jail!

No to a constitutional amendment mandating the state to build a high-speed rail -- whoops, too late.

Now that the proverbial door has been opened, where it will end?
-- Daryl Henegar, Pinellas Park

Reduce risk on your own

Re: Smoke-free workplaces make healthy sense, Aug. 21.

As the Gipper once said, "There you go again." The good doctor who wrote this letter makes an appeal to protect "the children" as if to say that those who do not stand with him are child abusers.

Those of us who are parents are always cognizant of where we are and what our children are exposed to. When my family enters an establishment that permits smoking, our first words to the host are, "Please seat us in the non-smoking section as far away from the smoke as possible." You know what? We get what we ask for. It's very simple, painless and requires no adulteration of the state Constitution.

Does the smoke magically stop at the boundary of the smoking and non-smoking sections? Obviously not. But my wife and I have chosen to be there because we like the establishment and want the owner/operator to succeed. Yes, my children may be temporarily exposed to some secondhand smoke, and it is annoying. But what I tell my children is that as annoying as it may be, the smoking customers have been given permission by the owners (via the smoking section of the establishment) and have chosen to smoke and engage in risky behavior. After that temporary exposure, we resume our daily lives smoke-free, and over time those toxins mentioned by the doctor eventually are eliminated. If they weren't then there would be no incentive for smokers to stop.

The statistics the letter sites and the statement that "secondhand smoke kills people" are nothing more than an attempt to mathematically and rhetorically coerce the public into conceding more of their rights. If people were actually dropping dead while working or eating at the rate mentioned, don't you think we would have heard about that? Yes, smoking is a preventable health risk. People are free to assume that risk or not. I reduce or prevent my risk by reducing the number of times I frequent places that permit smoking. No law was necessary to protect me or decide for me -- I did it all by myself. Most places where large numbers of people gather such as hospitals, government buildings, department stores or other closed areas already have their own indoor smoking policies in place. How is that possible? Free market decisions based on the desires of the customers. It doesn't get much simpler.

As a Libertarian, I summarily reject the non-smoking constitutional ballot initiative and I hope liberty-minded readers of this paper do so as well. As a non-smoker, the rejection still stands.
-- Joe Haynes, Seminole

Unscientific assertions

Re: Smoke-free workplaces make healthy sense, letter, Aug. 21.

The recent letter from a physician regarding secondhand smoke should win the Nobel Prize for Junk Science. The letter writer's unsupported assertion that more people die prematurely every year from secondhand smoke than died in the entire Vietnam War is patently silly. The letter provides not one bit of evidence that links the nation's 53,000 annual deaths from heart disease to secondhand smoke.

As for his claim of 3,000 deaths, that citation is from the EPA's notorious 1993 secondhand smoke risk assessment. This report was concocted to support its 1989 dictate to ban smoking in the workplace. This dictate defied more than 40 studies then current at that time and was so unscientific that the tobacco companies challenged it in court and won. A federal judge vacated that report and stated: "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; . . . deviated from its [standard procedures]; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative records."

This hysteria should be an embarrassment to those who respect science.
-- Terry Hulsey, Clearwater

A competitive point

Re: Smoke-free buildings.

Since Tampa Bay aspires to the same Olympic heights as Salt Lake City, perhaps the first step to take is to ban smoking in all buildings open to the public, including restaurants, just as Salt Lake City did several years ago. I dined in several Salt Lake City restaurants last March, and none was lacking for customers.
-- Donna Allen, Tampa

Don't be suckered by silliness

I would hope that people don't even sign the petition to put the class-size limit amendment on the ballot, much less vote for it.

Now, don't get the idea that I'm "anti-education" in some way. I'm not. But your editorial (Money, not amendments, Aug. 25) was right on: The way to address educational needs already exists. Establish goals, set funding and hold officials accountable. The state Constitution already says that "the education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the state of Florida." That's really all that the Constitution needs to say.

Besides, the proposed amendment would make class sizes of 18-25 a requirement. We all know that, generally, smaller classes are better than larger. But the amendment would have two effects. First, why is 25 the magic bullet? That is, let's say a county can do 26 with "reasonable" efforts, but 25 is very difficult to do. Would it really matter? And second, one thing "18-25" would do: No one will try to reach 17. These kinds of floors become ceilings. Look around you. "Minimums" become the absolute requirement.

This amendment sounds all warm and fuzzy, but really it's about as silly as the high-speed rail thing. Let's not let ourselves be suckered again so soon.
-- Ernest Lane, New Port Richey

Questions for Condit

Re: Gary Condit.

Every one among the public seems to have his or her own opinion on what "zinger" questions Connie Chung and the other interviewers have missed out on asking. I believe our evaluation of the morality of Gary Condit's actions should be based on the level of his consideration for the wishes of the Levy family. One of the greatest wrongs he has committed has certainly been his refusal to meet with and speak to the private investigators the family has hired.

If I were the one interviewing Condit, I would negate this lack of cooperation on his part by asking my questions directly from a list made up by these investigators. They best know exactly the questions that need answering and are the most morally entitled to ask them in that they act on behalf of the family itself.
-- Adam I. Orenstein, Clearwater

What's all the fuss?

Well, it seems as though the liberals in Washington are getting disappointed with Gary Condit, especially after his most recent interview with Connie Chung on television. A few are even going as far as recommending that Rep. Condit resign from office!

Personally I would like to see the radical left wing Democrats leave Condit alone. After all, it's only about sex -- and it's his personal life they are pestering him about.
-- Robert E. Guthrie, Seminole

Relative risks in cholesterol treatment

In a recent edition of the St. Petersburg Times, I came across several legal advertisements attesting to the potential health risk and manufacturer's liability surrounding the recall of the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol.

Heart disease and stroke claim 950,000 lives each year. Elevated blood cholesterol is a major risk factor for the initial development and progression of heart disease. Our understanding of the importance of aggressive cholesterol management has led to a dramatic reduction over the past decade in heart-attack-related death. Treatment available in today's health care has been studied extensively, and cholesterol-lowering medications such as Baycol, Pravacol, Lipitor, Zocor (and others) have been studied in more than 40,000 people, resulting in significant reduction of heart attack, angioplasty and bypass operations.

With proper monitoring of patient response, these drugs have a proven safety record that far outweighs the rare side effects that have led to the voluntary recall of the Baycol product. Reduction of cardiac risk factors such as triglycerides and cholesterol and use of statin agents into a "heart-smart" lifestyle dwarf the potential risk of the treatment. It is necessary to maintain timely follow-up with your health care provider, due to potential side effects of any medications.

I participate daily in the aggressive treatment of cardiovascular risk factors using these agents. In our litigious society, one must take note of lives saved, rather than attempt blame. Bayer has demonstrated significant corporate responsibility for voluntarily removing a product that, in higher doses and in combination with other agents, has been shown to have potential safety concerns. Despite this decision to recall the statin Baycol, we (and our legal advisers) must not rush to suggest that these drugs, so vital in our battle against the epidemic of heart disease, are anything short of miraculous.
-- Mary B. Reis, M.S., A.R.N.P, cardiac preventive services, clinical director, Heart & Vascular Institute of Florida, Safety Harbor

Nature's ways can be unforgiving

Re: An appalling feeding practice, letter, Aug. 23.

Here's a news flash: Snakes are predators and, unlike many other predators, they do not eat carrion. They only eat prey that they have killed. Sure, it is probably frightening and painful for the "furry little rabbit" to be "sacrificed" to the "terrifying looking" serpent, but it is also very natural.

Mother Nature is very unforgiving, and it is both ignorant and dangerous to think otherwise. Snakes kill and eat their prey; there is no "alternative feeding method."
-- Pete Hines, Tampa

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
--

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page