Posted 10/11/2006 05:03:00 PM by Douglas

What does Scotland's smoking have to do with Houston? A lot, apparently, according to the city council.

The health of Scottish bartenders and other pub staff improved significantly within weeks after that country banned smoking, according to a new study.

The study, conducted before and after Scotland's ban took effect March 26, found a decrease in the number of workers reporting respiratory symptoms, as well as objective health improvements, including less nicotine in the bloodstream and better lung function.

That's fine, and fucking obvious even to the most casual observers. So what? Head injuries have shown to decrease among those that stop punching their heads with ball peen hammers. Does that mean the government should step in and tell me to stop hitting myself in the head? The Republic has changed to a pre-emptive state under the Bush Doctrine, but that's really the core of that question. This is America, and if there's money to be made in bars where people want to smoke, who is to tell the bartender he can't inhale second-hand smoke from his paying customers if that's what he chooses to do?

Smoking is disgusting, lethal, and annoying if you're not used to it, but still not nearly as annoying as a screaming, kicking child in a restaurant/airplane.

But it comes down to whether or not the nanny-state thinks we have the right/ability to decide for ourselves how to live our lives, or they decide for us.

But get ready for the backlash, nanny-state, as people stop drinking in bars and/or smoking, because both of those activities the state is discouraging provide it with millions of dollars annually.

You can't ban your smoke and tax it too.