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
please provide the section where your right to smoke shall not be infringed ?
Where did I mention property rights at all. I haven't said a word about anti-smoking laws. A poster objected to the government restricting a business' customer base. I questioned the strength and extent of her objection. You are of course free to twist it any way you want.
When there are smoking and non-smoking sections available, I respect the people around me and only smoke in the designated smoking area.
When the entire area is designated as non-smoking, then mutual respect in no longer being applied. When in that situation, I can and do smoke anywhere in the building that I desire.
This last week, I was on vacation in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and we had specifically reserved a smoking room at the hotel where we were staying. When got to our hotel room, it was designated as a non-smoking room. I promptly returned to the front desk to correct this error.
I was told that all of the hotel was non-smoking and I must go outside if I wished to smoke.
That motel room rapidly became filled with smoke!
Since they failed to provide proper ash-trays in the room, the carpets may need extra cleaning.
Mutual respect is all that I ask.
Well, let's see: United - 150,000 miles
Delta - 56,000 miles
American - 43,000 miles
Alaska - 15,000 miles
I have a low threshold for odors. Even a "smoking room" where the lingering effects left by nicotine stained fingers qualifies as a 'stench' for me.
If smokers were not so rude, this wouldn't even be an issue. How can you think it is okay to smoke in a doctor's office or a grocery store? Sick people should not have to wait for the doctor choking on some lazy slobs smoke. In a grocery store, smoke is left behind on other people's food. Does it really kill a smoker to take it outside? This is an area where self-regulation would be the best answer if only people had the manners and decency to do so. When they won't, you have to start involving the government. In public everyone's rights are affected.
This argument that the members of society have no right to restrict the public use of a legal product should try to use condoms in a family restaurant and see where it gets them.
When you can smoke there he is your cause and best bud. When he gets steamrolled by the majority and has to ban smoking, screw him.
Your words express such dear concern for the poor property owner, it almost brings smoke filled tears to my eyes.
No, but strapping them into a car seat and force feeding there lungs still is.
Many of these smoking bans, as you have recognized, go beyond public health and into areas of private property. I have no objections to laws limiting smoking in public places- as in, "government owned."
If not then why even have a government?
To protect the rights of individuals. That is the ultimate end of government. Representation is simply a means to that end, not an end in itself.
Mutual respect is all that I ask.
Based on your post, no one reading this would consider you the least bit selfish.
However, once you violate the concept of mutual respect, then I will proudly blow smoke into your face.
Deal with it!
It's the only factor.
You cannot smoke pot on private property, so it is not entirely a property issue.
Pot is illegal everywhere. But nice try.
What smokers refuse to accept is the fact that their smoking infringes on the clean air of others.
You have no "clean air" on my property. You have no air at all. No one is forcing you to come onto my property. If you don't like the air there, stay away.
A little self-imposed courteousy would go a long way towards influencing the public against forcing such regulations.
It is very discourteous to come into my place of business, and tell me, (at gunpoint if necessary) that I may not allow my guests to smoke. It is clearly none of your business. There is no right to come into my business. There is no legitimate power to tell me what legal practice I may do there.
Only thugs and two bit tyrants who hide behind government guns to pretend that such rights and power exist.
Only liberals and other authoritarian swine argue for such laws.
Just as smoke free restaurants popped up long before laws against smoking were inacted, I think the same would have happened to the airline Industry:
Do laws discourage smoking ALL substances?
Cannabis smoking is against the law. Deal with it!
Your post makes no sense. One, there is no support for your statement that smoke free restaurants popped up before laws, and Two, you statement that you think the same would have happened to the airline industry doesn't make sense since it history shows that it did not.
Remember, when we made reservations for this hotel a few months ago, we had specifically requested a smoking room.
We were assured that a smoking room was reserved for us.
We pre-paid our hotel reservation 3 months in advance of our arrival last week. I feel absolutely justified in how I dealt with this situation.
P.S. No damage was done that a vacuum cleaner will not fix in 5 seconds.
Y'know, it's disingenuous for smokers to mock non-smokers about sensitivity. We don't smoke, so we can smell smoke sooner and at lower concentration than smokers. Fact of physiology. Smoke eaters don't get all the smoke, or the smell. No matter what you do, I promise, a non-smokers can tell you smoke even when you don't have a stick in hand.
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.