Lion of the Blogosphere

Mike Bloomberg’s greatest accomplishment

Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post:

Bloomberg doesn’t get enough credit for this — as far as I can tell, he gets no credit whatsoever for this — but he is probably more responsible than any other human being on Earth for getting people off cigarettes and consequently saving untold numbers of lives. When Bloomberg banned smoking in bars and restaurants in 2003, everyone thought it would kill New York City social life. New York would stay home and drink boxed Chablis and eat Lean Cuisines! Every restaurant manager and barmaid in the city pleaded with him not to destroy their business.

Instead, they got to breathe fresh air. They got to take a shower the next morning without setting off the smoke detector. And everyone kept going out to eat and drink. Some smokers learned to go outside when they wanted a ciggie, grudgingly admitting that this was better for everyone than stinking up every pub, and it helped them reduce their consumption. Others simply gave up and quit, especially when Bloomberg drove up the price of a pack of Marlboros to approximately the level of a Toyota Celica.

Truly, it was the positive results of the ban on cigarette smoking that cured be of dogmatic libertarianism. The government stepped in with a regulation. Libertarians said only bad things could come of any government regulation. But the opposite happened. The government regulation worked, and everyone benefited from it. I personally benefited from it. Now, when I go out, I don’t come home with my clothes reeking of stale cigarette smoke.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 17, 2019 at 8:10 PM

Posted in Libertarianism

58 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Smoking is good for the economy. A smoker who dies at 55 after an intense but relatively brief illness costs the taxpayers far less money than a nonsmoker who lives to 90, after collecting Social Security for 25 years and spending the last five years rotting away in a nursing home in adult diapers at taxpayer expense.



    November 17, 2019 at 8:14 PM

    • You should make that argument to the wife and kids of someone who died from lung cancer at 55.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 17, 2019 at 8:15 PM

      • What the hell, let’s ban cigarettes. We’re already starting down the path of outlawing a lot the things that at least some people enjoy: cigarettes, red meat, cheap and abundant energy, airline travel, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press.

        I used to joke that as long as Ted Kennedy was still alive and in the senate, there was not a chance in hell Prohibition would ever come back. Now I’m not so sure. (I would also not discount the possibility that Fat Teddy would have gone along with it, as long as he had some way of evading the law to continue his tippling.)

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        November 18, 2019 at 7:00 PM

      • Rich people and SWPLs like to drink, so I doubt that prohibition will come back.

        As to whether people should be allowed to breathe carcinogens into their lungs in the privacy of their own homes, I feel the same way about this as I feel about gay sex in the privacy of people’s homes.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 18, 2019 at 7:02 PM

    • Not only is it good for the economy, prole dead weights like those who are lower IQ people with bad habits go into extinct mode in the way of the prehistoric lifeforms.

      Ok, what, who's this again?

      November 17, 2019 at 9:30 PM

      • Proles aren’t dead weight. America isn’t great because it has more smart people. It’s great because the average person is smarter. It makes a big difference whether it takes a mechanic half a day to fix your car or three. And it makes a big difference whether they do it right or mess it up. Extrapolate that across the entire working class which comprise the majority of workers and it adds up. The higher classes only have what they do because the working class is competent. Smart people know and appreciate this.


        November 18, 2019 at 12:07 PM

      • Again, the only proles you should appreciate are the ones who make the sewage pipes running, and that’s as far as you can get with them. You wouldn’t want them in your proximity for other things.

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        November 18, 2019 at 12:42 PM

  2. So I assume alcohol is next on your banned list? How about sugar? It would save lives…

    Mike Street Station

    November 17, 2019 at 8:18 PM

    • Sugar is more dangerous than nicotine which there is currently a war against. We should tax the hell out of it. Obesity costs more than smoking ever did and is way worse for kids than the vaping war the first lady decided to start. 25% of kids are fat and we can’t tackle that.


      November 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM

      • Yeah, that’s the reason they called lollipops “coffin pegs” in the old days.

        We’ve always known cigs are bad for your health.


        November 18, 2019 at 12:39 PM

      • Which is why I said nicotine and not cigarettes. There’s a ton of other stuff in cigarettes that’s terrible for you. Like, smoke. The amount of sugar the average american consumes is nuts. 40% of adults are obese. I’d rather have the smokers.


        November 18, 2019 at 2:03 PM

    • Yes. It would save lives.


      November 18, 2019 at 12:12 PM

  3. Yet the opioid crisis hasn’t shut up the drug legalization crowd.


    November 17, 2019 at 8:37 PM

  4. It is also plausible that Bloomberg is responsible for the death of an untold number of lives. By banning cigarettes at bars some people, who may have otherwise stayed home to avoid the stench of cigarette smoke, went out and drank too much, causing accidents on the way home.


    November 17, 2019 at 8:43 PM

  5. Bans happened in Australia at similar times.

    Yes it’s a good example of a law making things better despite what libertarians think. That said smokers are restricted more than is justified eg smoking exclusion zones around streets were cars emit far more smoke etc.

    Antipodean Coward

    November 17, 2019 at 8:46 PM

  6. No, Bloomberg’s greatest accomplishment was keeping up stop and frisk. I believe it started under Giuliani and that Bloomberg was under pressure to curtail it but he didn’t.

    Also he refused to pay the Central Park Thugs a dime. He stonewalled. Wilhelm did it.


    November 17, 2019 at 8:58 PM

  7. Banning cigarettes led directly to the rise of the tattoo culture. Before the ban a girl smoking was was a solid indication of sexual willingness. After the ban they had to invest in tattoos and even more revealing clothing to create the same effect.

    Bloomberg brought us yucky tattoos.


    November 17, 2019 at 9:55 PM

    • The decline of smoking could also be connected to the rise of obesity. I am not a fan of smoking but I would go back to the era of smoking in public places if we could get thin non-tattooed women back.

      Jay Fink

      November 18, 2019 at 4:10 AM

  8. O/t and btw, if you haven’t checked out this museum in the Hudson Valley yet, write a letter to Bill De Blasio and tell him to pay a visit and ask him what he thinks of this.

    Sadistic Minimalism meets SJWism.

    Ok, what, who's this again?

    November 17, 2019 at 10:07 PM

    • Crushed cars are art? LOL. I guess I’m too prole to understand the beauty of crushed cars.


      November 17, 2019 at 11:28 PM

  9. “but he is probably more responsible than any other human being on Earth for getting people off cigarettes and consequently saving untold numbers of lives.”

    Don’t confuse cause and effect. Smoking began its decline in the mid 60s and has been steadily dropping ever since. One of the main reasons is that anti-smoking campaigns target youth. Over 90% of smokers began before they were 18. Is banning smoking in bars and restaurants going to keep them from starting? No. Is banning smoking in bars and restaurants going to make other people quit? No. Non-smokers have always wanted to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. What really happened is that, by 2003, enough people had quit smoking that it was finally feasible. His policy was a result of smoking’s decline not the cause of it. It would have happened regardless.


    November 17, 2019 at 10:22 PM

    • I probably shouldn’t have said “people had quit smoking”. I’m sure some did. But it’s probably more of a case of older smokers dying off and fewer young people taking up smoking in the first place.


      November 17, 2019 at 10:26 PM

  10. When people routinely smoked in restaurants and bars, by which I mean up to about 35, it never bothered me. Nowadays, if I happen to inhale even a smidge of smoke on the sidewalk, I get an instant headache that lasts for a couple hours. Weird.


    November 17, 2019 at 10:50 PM

    • Bloomberg is 78. He grew up before the cultural revolution of the late 60s when attitudes towards drugs (especially marijuana) became so permissive and relaxed. Sessions is 72 and similarly grew up before the cultural revolution. And he spent his time as AG trying to crack down on marijuana as well. So this is a generational thing. Bloomberg is also big into healthy living ie no tobacco, soda, etc. Which I very much agree with. And the simple fact is that marijuana causes birth defects, brain damage, traffic accidents, etc. Still, if Bloomberg persists in his nanny ways people will start saying “OK Bloomer”.


      November 18, 2019 at 10:44 AM

  11. I should have added that Sailer has the bigger story on Bloomberg: apologizing to blacks for stop/frisk, the policy that saved a lot of black lives. What a pussy.


    November 17, 2019 at 10:58 PM

    • See my comment above. Bloomberg deserves to be canceled for this! I’m not joking!


      November 17, 2019 at 11:36 PM

  12. smoking 8-12 cigarettes a day i don’t think is that detrimental to health if you’re fit and eat reasonably well. the people getting cancer usually tend to be pack a day smokers, if not more.


    November 18, 2019 at 12:22 AM

    • I kinda envy the rush my co-workers seemed to get from their cig breaks. I worked as a bookkeeper with a lady in sales who would charge back in and make her long cold calls, and I thought man, I could do that too with a little dopamine boost every half hour. .

      So I wonder if 3-4 cigs a day would kill me at this point.

      Mrs Stitch

      November 18, 2019 at 10:04 AM

    • Researches discuss smoking in terms of “pack years” where smoking a pack a day for a year is one pack year. This leads people to think that smoking 1 cigarette a day is only 1/20 as bad as smoking 20 a day. But smoking risks aren’t linear. A person who smokes a half a pack of cigarettes a day for 40 years (20 pack years) is at greater risk for lung cancer than someone who smoked two packs a day for 10 years (also 20 pack years). The smoking risks for stroke and heart disease are even more non-linear. Smoking 1 cigarette a day actually carries the same heart disease and stroke risks as half a pack. So 1 cigarette a day or even half a pack may not be as dangerous as a pack. But even 1 cigarette a day can kill you. There’s no amount of smoking that’s safe.


      November 18, 2019 at 11:17 AM

  13. I think the point that cigarettes and now vapes are being banned is to reduce money available to one party. While marijuana and painkillers are being promoted to increase money available to the other party.

    My 2¢

    November 18, 2019 at 2:23 AM

  14. The amazing thing is how quickly almost every major developed city in the world followed New York’s lead.

    Paris – 2006, London – 2007, Moscow 2013, etc. Even Vienna has finally given up this year and signed on to the globalist smoking agenda.

    Peter Akuleyev

    November 18, 2019 at 5:12 AM

  15. Bloomberg is on record saying that maybe guns should be taken from minorities. At least he was able to acknowledge who produces the problem of misnamed ‘gun violence’.


    November 18, 2019 at 6:47 AM

  16. In modern times, wiki tells it was first done by Nazi germany in 1941 and then by Minnesota state in 1975. By the time he did in NY, several big cities had already done it …


    November 18, 2019 at 7:29 AM

    • Are you trying to say it’s evil because Nazis had the idea?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 18, 2019 at 8:30 AM

      • They were too efficient.

        My 2c

        November 18, 2019 at 10:49 AM

      • Did anyone else think that was Bruno’s point? Me neither.


        November 18, 2019 at 10:55 AM

      • Not at all. I am just saying it’s not new. So even if it’s good I doubt it’s his biggest accomplishment.

        Hitler was a big smoker and when he stopped, he wanted all other people to stop. Werner Huttier, health minister, infered from incipient data collected by physician and nurses in the private sector, that breastfeeding from women smoker was bad because the milk was contaminated by nicotine wich was proven true 50 years later (in the 90ies).


        November 18, 2019 at 2:28 PM

  17. California banned smoking in 1995.

    Children should be allowed to smoke

    November 18, 2019 at 9:24 AM

    • Werner Huttig.


      November 18, 2019 at 2:29 PM

  18. Bloomberg did not lead the way on this:

    “Statewide smoking ban: Since January 1, 1995, smoking has been banned in all enclosed workplaces in California, including bars and restaurants (bars were excluded until January 1, 1998)”

    So basically California went all in on this eight years before Bloomberg.

    Dan Hess

    November 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM

    • Meanwhile there are still places in the U.S (mostly in the South) that don’t have comprehensive smoking bans to this day.

      I noticed the more liberal a state is on marijuana legalization the more strict they are on cigarette and now vaping bans. Massachusetts (where weed is legal) is on the verge of banning menthol cigarettes and flavored vapes. The Southern states where you can still smoke in restaurants and bars will be the last to legalize marijuana unless a federal law forces them to.

      Jay Fink

      November 18, 2019 at 2:38 PM

      • “The Southern states where you can still smoke in restaurants and bars”

        Can you? I haven’t noticed. Maybe the “no smoking” laws are at the local level rather than the state. Or maybe there are so few smokers left and so many businesses that prohibit it that it’s no longer an issue. But I can tell you that it’s not. I’d be surprised if the remaining states ever passed “no smoking” laws for something that’s no longer an issue. It would be like passing traffic laws for horse-drawn carriages. What would be the point?


        November 18, 2019 at 8:49 PM

  19. Hey, Leon! Nikki Haley defended Trump against George Conway’s attacks in an ugly twitter exchange. Do you think it’s a clever scheme to deflect suspicion away from herself??? 🙂


    November 18, 2019 at 8:57 PM

    • Yes, I do!

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 18, 2019 at 9:11 PM

      • If she had trashed Trump to Conway, he would have gladly outed her … So she must have kept quiet since her nomination. Else I don’t see why it wouldn’t be out (except if she is plotting with MSM but it seems too convoluted an explanation).

        She probably despises Trump but she has been betting on him and doesn’t want to take her win yet.

        She must be inferring, the contrary to Lion, that Trump will probably win 2020.


        November 19, 2019 at 10:14 AM

      • “She must be inferring, the contrary to Lion, that Trump will probably win 2020.”

        Well I’m smarter than her because she denies the science of HBD.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 19, 2019 at 10:18 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: