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
Its never been about property for either group. For the smokers they just care about being able to smoke where ever and when ever. For nonsmokers its about the smell of the smoke and the remaining stench.
Extremism cuts both ways. Ordered liberty means that the majority does rule on issues other those written in black and white in our Constitution. In the end, even that is an issue for the majority, albeit a super majority. The people are the final arbitrators of the Constitution. We can replace our representatives. We can amend the Constituion. We can revolt.
If you do not like the smoking laws then persuade lawmakers and the people who vote for lawmakers. It is ridiculous and extreme to define everything any individual desires as a Constitutionally protect right no matter who else is affected by it.
Smokers are not selfish when they say "they don't care" about someone having to breath their smoke ?
All the successful attorneys I know tend bar on the side.
Half the time it's boards of health promulgating ordnances.
Other times, voters have not succeed in overturning bans.
US Constitution, RIP.
>>. It is ridiculous and extreme to define everything any individual desires as a Constitutionally protect right no matter who else is affected by it.
So, let me know how you feel when the Food Police and the EnviroNuts really gather steam, based on the whittling away of Freedom of Association in private establishments, among other things.
Conservatives, Liberals, all the same suckers of the Nanny State Teat!
You don't get it, smokers are a "minority", just like Blacks (no wait they were born that way), just like the disabled (no wait, they didn't chose to be disabled), just like , oh, I don't know, but we are a minority and the rest of you are panty-waist whiners.
That's because those selfish judges don't allow smoking in the courtroom.
Great article ping!
Well then, get busy and get more people smoking.
Allowing someone onto their property and catering to their desires in the hope of making a profit is selfish of those evil bourgeois property owners! We must ensure the safety of the proletariat!
Boards of Health can weigh in on an issue but they do not decide what is and is not legal. The people have all the say. If the people are uninformed then blame those in charge of informing them. Work to change it. But every tiny thing a person desires to do in public is not an issue of liberty protected by the Constitution. That which is public should be defined by a majority. What is freedom if we cannot define our own culture? Whenever possible, that should be done by social norms, standards, and stigmas rather than by legislation. But it is for the people to decide. That's how our constituional republic works. Too many people forget about the representative part and only see the individual liberty part. Public liberties cease to be about only the individual. If we were talking about speech then I could see your point better. But there are issues of public health and morals which affect us all and are legitimately regulated by the people's representatives. If not then why even have a government?
That said, I would support smoking bans in public buildings but not in private businesses myself, except maybe grocery stores and doctors offices and such. But I will whenever possible choose a restaurant that bans smoking.. Smoking coats everything around it.
Once again spouting your big government rhetoric. So glad you celebrate using the government to ensure your convenience and preferences are dictated to the rest of society. What a nice conservative view you have.
A little insight into the issue might be gained by reading your own tag line.
The bans have been in many cases instituted by unelected boards of health, supported by property-rights averse judges in some instances.
At any rate, the issue is one of property rights, period.
I have no problem with an establishment that goes non-smoking of its own volition. I just don't patronize them, free choice all around.
I do have a problem with business owners being forced by the government to limit their customer base.
Smoking on private property is a property rights issue. Any other explanation is pure BS.
And this thread isn't about homos. Stay on topic or find a gay bashing thread.
Does that extend to keeping kids out of porn shops?
"Its never been about property for either group. For the smokers they just care about being able to smoke where ever and when ever. For nonsmokers its about the smell of the smoke and the remaining stench."
That proves the logical fallacy that you, and all anti's, have. The smoking population will respect the property owner's decision while the anti smokers would prefer to steal the use of the property for their convenience.
Why are you so weak that you are forced to enter private property where smoking is allowed? Is it out of the same weakness that forces you into these threads?
Except? LOL, c'mon be honest. You want government to use force to make things as you want them.
Smoking is legal, showing porn to children is not. But nice try.
In the case of my previous reply, evidently you're a selective reader, just like you're a selective reader of the Constitution. VRWC_minion indeed. Please don't reply. I read enough from self-rightous Blind to the Constitution rights siezers already.
FMCDH
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.