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
To each their own, Michael.
You must not travel too much. The smoke eaters of today did away with the "stench."
I was truly amazed when they introducewd one in Ireland. I haven't been there since (thankfully I moved two weeks before i came in) but I simply couldn't imagine an Irish pub without its haze of smoke.
I'm all for smoke-free areas in bars and restaurants, but only that - areas. Everybody should be accomodated.
Taliban America. Insha'allah!
I think that may have been the case ten or twenty years ago, but not anymore. I think too many people now are offended just by the idea of smoking. Just seeing someone in a restaurant or other place lighting up, or knowing that someone, somewhere is enjoying tobacco, is unacceptable to them. No matter how polite a smoker may be, some people will still go to great lengths, including appealing to the state, to eliminate what they see as a fundementally evil act.
Heheh! Ok! Have fun, Gabz!!
'Ain't' it the truth!
Better yet, castrate and sterilize them! Keep the taxes flowing
Do you lack confidence in the workings of the free market in general, or just on this particular issue?
Look for the mentally disturbed authoritarians masquerading as conservatives to soon arrive on this thread and begin to attack you.
If the owner of the property feels like accomodating them.
Anything else is tyranny.
I'm a smoker as most of my friends are. Almost all of us respected non-smokers wishes long before any "bans" came about. Besides, this is still and only a property rights issue.
FMCDH
I remember sleeping in smoke-stenched rooms with cigarette burns on the covers.
I remember having to share an office with a smoker.
I remember flying in smoke filled planes.
I remember eating in smoke filled restaurants.
I remember the how laws changed all that.
I remember freedom.
I remember property rights.
I remember how some laws changed all that.
Beat that straw man! Not being able to restrain oneself has not a damn thing to do with it. But then your smug, self-righteous self already knew that, didn't you.
See the looks you get when you simply hold a cig in a Taliban establishment. People literally look at you funny, hey, wait, maybe that's because of the kaffiyeh on my head.
As long as he doesn't yell "Fire!" he shouldn't be prosecuted.
OTOH the management shouldn't be legally obliged to serve him.
Smoking is not so much a moral issue as a health issue. I think it is not tyranny for the majority to decide they do not want to tolerate public smoking. It is an issue that affects everyone present, not just the one that chooses to smoke. We are selfish. That the author is correct about. But the selfishness is just as much on the side of the in-your-face smoker as it is on the side of those who wish to not have smoke in their face. We are a selfish generation with the collective wisdom of a gnat. We might be very cute and clever, but we are a pack of nearsighted, arrogant fools (generally speaking and not including most freepers).
Back when liberty was worth fighting for it meant something entired deeper than whether or not you get to puff smoke in people's faces and flaunt your immorality with court-ordered public blessings. These are the issues of a spoiled generation.
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.
