The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment

CNSNews.com ^ | May 26, 2003 | Robert W. Tracinski

[Orangedog]

What you are missing is creeping abuse of power the continued erosion of personal rights and freedoms. My rights stop where I infringe upon the rights of another. And smoking infringes on the rights of others in what way? The second-hand-smoke argument is a load of crap, as honest, non-political science has never been able to prove it harms anyone. What we have are a bunch of whiney soccer-moms who don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. None of their rights are being endangered by my smoking a cigarette at the local bar or bowling alley. These are just the usual,'for-the-children' useful idiots with too much time on their hands. I can't wait until it's their oxe that's being gored! I Hope the lawyers and polititians have as much fun with them as they are with the smokers. They're day is coming.

[Lorianne]

Then lets eliminate all laws?

What about the right of people to govern themselves. An example of this is a community's right to set their own obscenity laws and keep out adult businesses. Smoking laws seem to me to be the same thing. If a community wants to make anti-smoking laws, they should be able to do that just as much as they can set their own speed limits, and other community standards.

[gtech]

If you want to ban smoking, or body odor, or strong perfume, or anything else on public property, I am open to a discussion on the topic and may or may not be convinced. If you want to force the owner of a restaurant to ban smoking, or any of the above, I am not open to discussion and can never be convinced it's the right thing to do. Although that's exactly what happened here in FL...

[Orangedog]

...if they were really concerned about their health, would vote with their dollars and create a market for smoke-free establishments.

Why bother putting up their own dollars when they can just use someone elses money...and like all taxation, its done with threat of deadly force. It makes doing "the right thing" so much easier. [/sarcasm]

[Tailgunner Joe]

So Texas can outlaw sodomy in your opinion?

[Lorianne]

What you are missing is creeping abuse of power the continued erosion of personal rights and freedoms.

I agree, vigilance is in order. But the slippery slope argument can be used to oppose any laws.

My rights stop where I infringe upon the rights of another. And smoking infringes on the rights of others in what way?

In a public place I have to smell your smoke. I don't want to. Tell me, if I go naked in public, that infringes on the rights of others in what way? Why are their laws against that?

The second-hand-smoke argument is a load of crap, as honest, non-political science has never been able to prove it harms anyone.

Irrelevant. Going naked in public hasn't scientifically been proven to harm anyone either.

As far as private businesses, I agree. I think private property owners should set their own smoking policies.

[Lorianne]

Yes, under a strict "state's rights" stance they can.

[Lorianne]

I agree about private property. My city just enacted a no-smoking law in restaurants and and pubs which also serve food and I'm totally opposed to it, even though I consider myself a radical non-smoker. I oppose it on property rights grounds. I hope it is repealed and would vote for a repeal.

On public property, it is a whole different matter. However, I would abide by the decision of a referendum law, even if it allowed smoking on public property.

[Tailgunner Joe]

What if they wanted to outlaw all sex?

[Lorianne]

Then let's eliminate laws. You game?

[Lorianne]

I wouldn't live in Texas :)

[Nachoman]

Ordinarily, I would take the position against statist government, but I think this issue is somewhat unique. One non-smoker cannot ruin dinner for a room full of smoking diners. One the other hand, one smoker in a restaurant can screw up even the best of meals for everyone in the area.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Unconstitutional laws are no laws at all.

[The Great RJ]

Health has little or nothing to do with the so-called smoking issue. It has far more to do with taxation. The true health crusaders want to ban all smoking for health reasons, but the liberals and other even Republican politicians cannot give up cigarettes as a major source of tax revenue.

If the health crusaders were to succeed, a major budget crisis would happen in nearly every state. However if economic forces prevail, the higher taxes will drive smokers to quit or seek cheaper sources (bootlegged, Indian Reservations, mafia etc.)also creating a budget crisis.

Sure is fun to watch!

[Tailgunner Joe]

The true believers are the useful idiots of the Dem shakedown artists. The dems don't want to ban smoking, they just want to skim their cut of the profit!

[Orangedog]

In a public place I have to smell your smoke. I don't want to. Tell me, if I go naked in public, that infringes on the rights of others in what way? Why are their laws against that?

Define "public place." McDonalds, Burger King or the bowling alley are private property.

In a public place I have to smell your smoke. I don't want to.

I don't like being in the same grocery store as a fat, spandex-clad single mother of four who lets her miscreants scream, yell and run all over the store...I just don't want to be exposed to it. So it would be okay to pass a law to make those people stay out of Kroger, right?

Tell me, if I go naked in public, that infringes on the rights of others in what way? Why are their laws against that?

Why? I don't know....maybe because it's not a good thing to induce spontaneous vomitting or driving men to poke out their own eyes with an ice pick ;)

Going naked in public hasn't scientifically been proven to harm anyone either.

Opinions vary.

[gtech]

Ordinarily, I would take the position against statist government, but I think this issue is somewhat unique. One non-smoker cannot ruin dinner for a room full of smoking diners. One the other hand, one smoker in a restaurant can screw up even the best of meals for everyone in the area

Vote with your wallet, not by giving the government more power. ASK restaurants to go totally non-smoking, DON'T go there if they don't. GET other non-smokers to do the same. Let the FREE market guide these private property owners. NOT the government.

[Lorianne]

You and I are not talking apples and apples. Private businesses should be able to set and enforce their own smoking policies.

Public places are streets and sidewalks, parks, libraries, city hall, etc. Places paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers should set the smoking policies in these places (by the democratic process). As I've said, if they hold a referendum and the majority wants to allow smoking in public places in my community, I would abide by that law, while trying to change it. I wonder if the majority of smokers are that fair?

[husky ed]

Those are the same reasons I don't go to Walmart, inside McDonalds and a dozen other places.

[bruinbirdman]

"What about the right of people to govern themselves. An example of this is a community's right to set their own obscenity laws and keep out adult businesses."

Jefferson said it a long time ago. Pure democracy is viable only at the level of a town, a small town.

That's why we have a republic. That's also why we have a Supreme Court. Combined with other checks and balances they prevent a tyranny of the majority.

yitbos