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
Wrong, it's about use of property by two opposing groups & more.
Nonsmokers want a smoke free environment for themselves. They also want a smoke free environment for everyone else. Call it the "just in case" clause, where all places open to the public must be smoke free. They want everywhere to be smoke free, just in case they might want to go there.
A business owner who smokes or a business owner who would like to operate a place which allows smoking is prevented from using their private property in a manner of their choosing by a ban.
For the smokers they just care about being able to smoke where ever and when ever.
It has gotten well beyond that, to being allowed to smoke *anywhere*. First, the activity was segregated. Next, it was kicked outside. Now, we're legislating distance from doorways. After that, it will be about doing it with any child around, which takes it into people's private vehicles & homes. It has already been used in custody disputes, with mixed success.
For nonsmokers its about the smell of the smoke and the remaining stench.
No, you're wrong. Tell yourself that's all it's about, the next time you hear how it raises everyone's health care costs...
"IF" is the defining word. This issue should be left up to the business owner and the patrons. Then there would be room for everyone.
It was wrong IMHO, for the Boards of Health to get involved in this. This ban is choking the economy, whether you agree with smoking or not. This ban is cutting out a lot of revenue for the business owners, when it should have been left up to the owner and his customers. NOT the government and the Coalitions for a Tobacco Free Everything.
Is it illegal to wear condoms in a family resturant? Who checks them out?
Where do people smoke things other than tobacco products?
bump
For the record, I'm not a smoker, never was. It's just so much fun though to press their buttons then sit back and watch the outraged insults fly.
That's funny. I know that I have spoken for property rights on issues such as eminent domain abuse, alcohol restrictions, and hiring laws, to name a few. Then again, I am not a smoker.
The minute the ban goes into effect they abandon the property owner by swearing to never visit his facilities again. These smokers are only concerned about themselves.
Those opposed to smoking bans are concerned about the rights of property owners in general, not the particular material success of individual property owners.
Most of us here believe in free speech, but that wouldn't require us to donate to the KKK to be considered consistent.
A business is not entirely private in that you invite the public onto your property. There should be minimal regulation, but the public has a right to regulate certain things.
You trashed a room because you couldn't smoke and nonsmokers are supposed to be concerned about smokers. Smokers wonder why they are getting marginalized. Gee, I wonder why?
There is another article titled THE OPPRESSIVE MINORITIES. It is a very interesting eye opening article, exposing how ethnic or religious minorities can control the majorities in many countries around the world. The secret was organization, networking, bribing the politicians, and of course hard working.
I agree that government protects the rights of individuals. Smoking is not solely about the right of the smoker when it is done in public. In this case there is a conflict of rights.
I'm allergic to many different perfumes. I think it's time to eliminate all perfumes from all commercial products used by everyone....
Well, in that case, how good a lawyer can he be ? ;)
That's odd, considering that they used the law to enforce racial segregation.
FMCDH
I never blew smoke in anyone's face. If there is a no smoking sign, I do not smoke. I find the sign that said "Smoking Permitted." I have always been a polite smoker. For myself, personally, I didn't deserve these bans. I pay cold hard cash for taxes just like most other people. In fact, I have paid a lot more then most people, just because I 'am' a smoker.
I didn't deserve this ban.
Certainly. But there is no conflict when it is done in a private place, such as a restaurant or privately owned business.
Nobody had a problem with segregated smoking and non-smoking designated areas. That respected the desires of both segments of the population.
Unfortunately, the non-smokers went crazy and have gone too far. They failed to remember that smokers are 25% of the population.
Today, I fight back when it is appropriate and encourage every other smoker to stand up also.
You are comparing Joe the bar owner who is losing income of the smokers because he has to ban smoking as the KKK ? Before the smoking ban he is your best friend that you love to give big tips to and as soon as the ban happens he is worse than a member of the KKK ?
I think smokers have redefined what it means to be selfish.
They already have. Funny thing is though I basically agree with them.
This is not an issue the government should dictate to a business. Let us decide where to spend our money: In a clean smoke free environment, or surrounded by people wafting their Lucky Strikes and Pall Malls, while drinking cheap whiskey and trying to mask the stench with cologne purchased for a quarter from a gas station vending machine, located next to the dispenser for "Mr. Sensation" prophylactics.
You make the strongest case of anyone, imo. I do not think it is about property rights PERIOD, however. I think it is important to be wary of regulation, but some regulation is important. Would you want to totally eliminate boards of health? Do you read their restaurant health ratings? I for one am glad they check for mice droppings, washed hands, food handling and the like. They serve an important role.
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.