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.
Ahhhhh you beat me TO it. LOL
Or to build another bar next door for the SMOKING PATRONS. Hey! Sounds GREAT to me! Use the parking lots for Smoking BARS. Yesssssss!
The public health issue is too creapy of socialism to be comfortable. What other thing will they ban as a public health issue?
The Government just BANNED ephedadrin. I can't spell it, but you know what I mean.
Wow, that raises an interesting question. If, as some suggest, second hand smoke is not harmful, what justification was there for the ban on smoking in hospitals?
That's what my favorite Tavern did here. They installed 4 huge ceiling "smoke eaters." You have to LOOK to see if anyone is smoking! You can't even SMELL smoke.
And that's what the Casino's in Vegas have. Yet, in Maine, this still wasn't good enough for the Health Coalition, who we can't even vote into office. They are all appointed by Liberal and RINO PIGS.
From your posts I had presumed you were much older. That's a compliment in case you weren't sure. :-)
Why, thank you! :-)
But I won't be drinking age till mid-2004.
One of the best one-liners on this topic, which makes the point concisely: One time a busybody saw humorist Robert Benchley drinking hard liquor and asked him, "Don't you know that stuff's slow poison?" Benchley replied, "That's okay, I'm in no hurry."
Good point, but aren't there lots of patients who are not in rooms with heavy concentrations of oxygen? I'm hoping to hear more on the question of whether second-hand smoke really is safe.
First off, they went from a Class B liquor license to a Class A. Which costs a lot of money.
They enclosed a big room with glass, for the non-smokers. The glass is gorgeous and the people who ever sit in there don't feel so closed in. They have a big screen TV in there and dart board games, etc., for the non-smokers.
In the bar area, they have the bar, and a lot of booths and tables where people can eat, drink and smoke. On the ceiling, there are 4 HUGE smoke eaters. I thought I heard that just one smoke eaters costs $2500 dollars.
On the door outside is that sign "This is a Smoking Establishment." They did EVERYTHING by the rules. But now, with a state forced smoking ban, who is going to reimburse them for all that money? Yea, you got it. NO ONE! It is all going down the toilet.
Forcing all the restaurants in Maine to go smoke free in 1999 wasn't good enough for them. They just HAD to go after the Bars, Taverns and the Sports Inns. They are all evil, IMHO. I bet the State House has a very foul odor coming from it. And it sure isn't the odor of smoke. Unless some heads are smoking from this LAW!
And it hasn't hurt any of us one bit!
Where is the support for these prohibition laws coming from and what do you understand their interests to be?
I sure am! And I am going to pass you URL on, and I might even use it at my own site! Give it more exposure. What do you think?
Huge grants to chop off the heads of the smoking staff, patients and family members who smoke, paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. To date, 48 states are now in the pocket of the RWJ Foundation working with the AMA.
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.