Posted on 01/02/2004 8:44:44 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
It seems that everyone has an opinion on the smoking bans that have been put into place in the last year. From Dallas to New York City to California, smokers are no longer allowed to smoke inside bars and restaurants. These bans have been met with great resistance, not only from smokers, but from the owners of the bars and restaurants, who say that the restriction is harming their business and causing profit loss. The opponents of such a ban also say that the bans are unconstitutional, because they prohibit legal behavior in privately owned places of business.
Most people rightly characterize this issue as having two sides - those on the side of property rights and liberty, and those who are on the side of public health. (I am without the scientific qualifications to resolve that issue, but I am comfortable assuming that cigarette smoke doesn't become safer just because one person has inhaled it before it gets to me.) Granting that assumption, which deserves priority – the right of a proprietor to control what legal activities happen in his bar, or the right of a member of the public to live and work in the safest environment possible?
Those who endorse the public health side of this issue contend that health issues outweigh every argument. They believe that people have the right to always be in the safest environment possible (whether they want to be or not), and that legislation is the proper vehicle by which to ensure public health. Their basic belief is that nothing is more important than health and safety for everyone, not even the idea of personal choice. They are willing to have their personal liberties curbed because they believe that it will improve the quality of their lives.
However, I believe that it really comes down to personal choice and responsibility. When someone makes a decision (any decision), they must decide for themselves what risks are involved, and weigh them rationally against the benefits. This applies to the decision to eat, drink, or work in a certain bar or restaurant, just as it does when someone makes the decision to drive a car, eat junky foods, or drink alcohol – all activities which are potentially dangerous but very legal. A ban on smoking takes away the choices of all three parties involved – smokers, nonsmokers, and owners. It also assumes that people are not sufficiently reasonable or rational enough to make their own decisions regarding their health.
Are there are ways to allow both sides to have a say in public smoking? Of course there are. Why not just require restaurants and bars that permit smoking to post a notice advising prospective customers of the hazard?
Until smoking is banned altogether, the decisions regarding the right to smoke in privately owned businesses should be left up to the individual discretion of the owner. Otherwise, choice is removed and replaced with full control by the government, which invalidates the entire idea of private ownership.
Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached at CathrynCrawford@WashingtonDispatch.com.
No assumption deserves priority. Science is divided on the effects of second hand smoke.
If the government keeps THIS up, all smokers WON'T be paying into the state coffers anymore. THEN they WILL come for YOU!
The summers are too short up here and the winters to long for me to even consider growing tobacco. It's a hard crop to grow in the north.
That was weird. (No... I haven't been drinking...but not a bad idea! :))
I fear we are becoming a nanny state, where some people want the government to make our choices for us.
When do we allow people to grow up if someone is always going to be calling the shots on what they think is good or bad for them?
What happened to the rugged individualism that this Country was founded on?
I hope that we can right this ship, and allow each person to make their own decisions in regards to what they decide to put into their mouths.
L(l)ibertarians hold that the only legitimate restriction on private property would be in using it to initiate force against another. For example, a legitimate restriction of owning a hammer is not using it to commit an unprovoked attack. If they go beyond that, by definition you are not describing a libertarian.
most of the "communists" agree that there are some limits to government.
Like what? From history's lessons we see communist governments do whatever they like.
Instead, he sees ownership as involving a bundle of different rights
Ok, aside from the owner's rights could you please describe the other rights relevant to smoking laws, who exactly holds them, where these rights are derived from and precisely how they are being violated by a voluntarily entered privately owned smoking establishment?
Is this a forgone conclusion---smoking to be ultimately banned?
You live in the land of the sun. I, too, would consider it if I lived in the south. Good for you, Gabz and good luck with it! It would sure be a wonderful project and sure would save even MORE money.
Where would you get the seeds? Do you know how to dry out the leaves and cut it? The leaves are huge, though. But one leaf would probably make a LOT of cartons, right?
That is the ultimate goal of the control freaks.....however, they are running into a slight problem - their own addiction to the taxes generated from tobacco.
Hell, smoking cannabis is even less harmful for you than smoking tobacco, and you can't even light up a mary jane in your own home without running the risk of losing everything you have and getting locked up in prison. Get used to it, tobacco newcomers!
I did. I had to reboot. Thought it was just me.
I fear we are becoming a nanny state, where some people want the government to make our choices for us.
When do we allow people to grow up if someone is always going to be calling the shots on what they think is good or bad for them?
Ever get this feeling of late?
Do you know how to dry out the leaves and cut it?
Nope - but that is what books are for. I looked in the library and was totally shocked that of all the books on Virginia agriculture there was only one small publication about tobacco production, and that was was from the mid 70s and issued by the Tobacco Institute.
Some of the seed companies have books listed on their sites with the how tos - I'm going to look them up and the next time I am in Salibusry I will head for the book warehouse there to find some.
TOBACCO NEWCOMERS????!!!!!
For one thing: when I smoke a cigarette, it doesn't give me that whacky "high" that pot does. I am still in control of myself, thank you.
I don't need that euphoria feeling.
Actually that is what we are seeking to prevent.
The major difference between the situation with cannabis and tobacco is money. The nanny state derives way too much money from tobacco for it to go the route of cannabis.
IMHO cannabis should be treated no differently than alcohol or tobacco. However that is not where I expend my energies at this time.
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.