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.
Anything that offends another human being! That's exactly where we're headed. People had better wake up and realize it. I smoke but most of my friends do not. Our state just voted for a state-wide smoking ban in most public places. All my non-smoking friends think it's great. I'm just waiting for the "communist" control freaks of the government to go after something they DO care about, for instance, their right to read the bible in eyesight of someone else. THEN it would be a different story. And another suggestion, everyone had better build a secret cellar and stock up on booze....they'll be after that next!
It strikes me so ironic, we have soldiers dying everday in the middle east in an effort to help those people become a free society and enjoy freedom of choice, speach, etc. and our LEGAL rights are being stepped upon each and every day! Just think about it.....it should strike fear in the hearts of every American!
Goodness!
January 2, 2004
This is so old. How did you find it?
I've been so ticked off about all these anit-smoking do-gooders lately, that I just searched the subject "anti-smoking".
Oh ok! hehe
I saw the date and wondered how the heck it got to the top again! I had forgotten all about that thread!
Thanks!!!
If the tar and nicotine is exhaled so that the smoke is as "unsafe" as uninhaled smoke then smoking can't be said to be harmful to the smoker. So, if the tar and nicotine is retained by the smoker, in any amount, then, ipso facto the smoke is safer after it was inhaled and exhaled.
You can't it have both ways.
I must be an idiot. I couldn't bring anything up with "pufflist"
Well it's been discovered here in Pittsburgh PA that second hand smoke will NOT be harmful at the new casinos, only everywhere else, lol.
And internet gambling - well it's morally wrong except for certain "games" and land gambling is not morally wrong at all.
It's getting scary, and that's NOT funny!
When my husband and I woke up Wednesday morning at 6:00 and turned on Fox News, I said, "Let's sell everything and move to Cayman!"
take out the quotation marks.
Fat chance.
Smokers are the new macacas!
The only group everyone can dump on without any misgivings.
No!
How's that?
still no luck
I don't really see where the "debate" is. The anti-smoking zealots are purpose driven statists who hate private property and are willing to hand property rights over to government so their eyes don't feel itchy if they choose to enter private property. The smokers are patriots who still love private property ownership and want to help small businesses flourish. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
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.