Posted on 05/21/2004 8:50:48 AM PDT by SheLion
Tyranny of the majority: Smoking ban is just plain wrong
Posted on Thu, May. 20, 2004
MATTHEW J. GOLLINGER
As smoking bans have made their way into law across the country, one adage has repeatedly come to mind: "What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right."
The St. Paul City Council is threatening to enact a smoking ban. The stink of smoke in clothing, the haze obscuring the stage and sore throats induced by second-hand smoke would be worries of the past. The majority recognizes that these benefits would improve their bar/restaurant experience and pledges their support to the ban.
These benefits can explain the popularity of the proposal, yet they do not justify it. The proposed ban recklessly ignores the ability of the free market to meet public demand. Moreover, free society demands that the majority refrain from such selfish imposition.
Smoking bans make sense in the context of hospitals and airplanes, which are areas of public necessity. Restaurants and bars, however, are recreational venues, where no one is forced to be. The proposed ban is grossly overbroad regulation, marginally increasing the convenience and comfort of the nonsmoking majority by drastically reducing the rights and privileges of the smoking minority. While the clothing of nonsmokers will be good for an extra wearing between washes, smokers will be shooed outside like dogs in the dead of winter.
This is pure selfishness by those favoring the ban. Currently, smokers and nonsmokers are able to enjoy a drink/meal in their venue of choice, nearly all of which have nonsmoking sections. Furthermore, nonsmokers are free to patronize restaurants that have voluntarily banned smoking. If people truly cared about the ban, such establishments would be inundated by those seeking smoke-free hospitality. Extensive advertising would appear to attract all of those nonsmoking dollars to smoke-free joints. The sponsors of the ban seek to take away our ability to "vote with our feet/pocketbook" by eliminating our ability to choose.
The smoking ban grows out of an ever-expanding brand of idiocy; that one has a fundamental right to be free from inconvenience and offense. This insanity is patently un-American. When we venture into the public, whether it be a sidewalk, park, bar or restaurant, we subject ourselves to experiencing the whole of our society. Frequently, our society is not a perfect reflection of who we are, and it offends us. One might be offended at the sight of a homosexual couple kissing, the hearing of a racial epithet or the stench of someone who chooses not to shower.
Tough luck.
While we could outlaw physical contact by members of the same gender, institute speech codes and make showering mandatory, we do not and should not. We do not prohibit these activities because our selfish need for convenience and personal comfort must not interfere with the basic freedoms we enjoy as a society.
The most compelling argument in favor of the ban is that hospitality employees are subjected to a dangerous work environment, polluted by carcinogens. Let me be clear on this point: I do not care. Neither should you.
I have worked as a bartender for the past four years. Though I do not consider myself a smoker, I have inhaled more than my fair share of second-hand smoke. Might this exposure cause long-term adverse health effects? Yes. However, I have grown up in a time when even people living under rocks are well aware that smoking is bad for you. Nevertheless, I chose to work as a bartender and accepted the negative aspects of the job along with the positive ones. As an adult in a free society, I weighed the relevant pros and cons and made the choice to serve drinks. Nobody forced me to get behind that bar, and I certainly don't need the City Council's protection. The implicit condescension and elitism of the sponsors of the smoking ban should infuriate all employees of the hospitality industry.
I like to think that we live in a relatively enlightened community that respects the rights of those who are outnumbered. However, as the smoking ban gains momentum, I am starting to believe that those who support the ban do not care whether such a ban is right, so long as it is popular.
Gollinger is an attorney and part-time bartender.
TwinCities.com
Can everyone say "NANNY STATE".
My favorite inept county councilperson, Carolyn Edmonds, was working on a plan to implement one of the smoking bans in King County, but then the one in Peirce County went tits up in the courts and she backed off.
She was lucky and dodged a political bullet on that one. Then, she got stupid and tried to put a tent city for the homeless (much like the old Hoovervilles) onto suburban county land. Didn't go well for her.
It's idiots like this that are the most dangerous to our rights as citizens...
But would he take a case to court against the smoking ban pro bono?
Heck no - he has to work a second job just to get by as it is!
;0)
Yes!
Maine wasn't so lucky! :(
Hi Chad! How have you been?
That thought crossed my mind. Why DOESN'T he??!!
Wanting to fill a room with smoke because one cannot restrain themselves is pure selfishness.
And when it is turned over for a vote, with 25-30% of the state being smokers, smokers still lose. :(
It's hard being in the 'minority,' especially if your a smoker. The other minorities are gaining their rights, but smokers are losing theirs. And smokers pay out more then their fair share in taxes.
If a restaurant/bar is too smoky, I'll just go somewhere else. If there's nowhere else to go, some creative entrepeneur will figure it out and open an establishment catering to my desires.
In fact, that happened in one case in Albuquerque. When the city council was playing politics with the bill and no one knew where it was going to end up, one of the larger west side restaurants went smoke free on its own accord as part of a business plan. (Must have worked - they got my business.)
There is so much truth in that above statement. We really do not need the government involved in this one.
As an ardent non smoker, one who travels on business a lot, I look for non smoking establishments, so that I can enjoy a nice glass of wine, free from the stench of stale cigarette smoke and cheap cigars.
He doesn't care because he is selfish. In this guys book selfish means anything that someone else does that causes him discomfort. If he does something that causes someone else discomfort, he doesn't care. Guess what ? Its because smokers don't care that the bans are happening. If they took a minimum of care they might stop the trend. But they won't.
I'm doing ok. How about you> If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go down to the parking garage, and have a smoke in the designated smoking area, and blow smoke at all the whiners who go out of their way to walk through the smoking area, and complain about the smoke even though it's nowhere near the doors...
be right back! ;0)
Without government you would probably still be flying on smokefilled planes, eating in smokefilled restaurants and sleeping in smoke-stenched rooms with cigarette burns on the bed covers.
Hmmmmm, I wonder if you are the majority or minority. I can almost hear the Marlborough man say, if only, Oh well, life is about choices
HaHaaaaaa! I'm having one right now!
Glad your doing well. I am doing good, thanks!! Sure happy winter is over, believe me!
On my way out the door, Friday afternoon date time ya know, but marking for later read!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.