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
LOL!
I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours!
Actually, I take that back.
I'm more interested in your rebelliousness score.
HELL no! I'd plant my own first!
Ah HA! I found YOUR addiction! You're addicted to bashing SMOKERS!
If your not, then why do you spend so much time in here? Getting your jollies off by bashing us?
I'm Ray
Hi Ray. Its been 16 seconds since I posted on an FR smoking thread.
Actually, I'm bored when I have to wait between jobs or for a program to finish.
Whaaaat?? You better re-read. "I" never said that to you!
I understand. Everyone travels to another state to have diner and a smoke. Its normal behavior. Everyone spends hours rolling their own to avoid taxes, its normal behavior. Everyone avoids the best hotel rooms to get a smoking room, its normal behavior.
Don't look now but you fell off the wagon. Remember, you were not ever going to post to me again.
That's ok. Enjoy it while you can.
Neither my taste nor role model.
I do weave with their wool, however.
I guess you'd know more about other factors related to sheep.
Does that mean that your 2nd addiction is to bashing nonsmokers?
I will treasure every crumb thrown my way.
No you don't understand and never will.
When the closest place that offers what you are seeking, whether it be shoes or booze or cigarettes or dinner, happens to be across a state line, what difference does it make? Seeking out what you want in the closest proximity is very normal behavior.
People are an interesting lot aren't they, they make decisions based on all kinds of things. I don't live in or near any major metro areas, so many of my options for things are limited. If, for example, my daughter needs a pair of shoes I have 2 choices, 10 miles north to the shoe store in Maryland or 25 miles south to the shoe store in the county I live in. I will opt for the convenience of crossing the state line to get what it is that I want.
When I lived in Delaware it was no different for me to drive to a restaurant 15 miles away in Maryland where I would be accommodated than it was to drive 25 miles to a Delaware restaurant with a similar menu, but not as accomodating after the smoking ban. And I more often than not opted for the MD restaurant even before the DE smoking ban - it was closer.
Normal behavior is obviously different for different people. Seeking convenience and comfort is generally normal behavior for most.
Heh! You don't think I'm going to sit here and TAKE it do you? LOL!
OH, GIMMIE A BREAK [KHQ, SPOKANE]!
Periodically we see these whining smoker self-pity parties posted in a new thread. All kinds of irate this's and that's get posted about. Non smokers are made to look and sound like the gestapo.
Smoking is made to sound like mother's milk, vitamins, sunshine, rainbows, the American Revolution and all things bright and wonderful.
The facts are otherwise but never to be acknowledged so by the chronic whiners addicted to niccotine. It amazes me some actually claim to not be addicted physically or psychologically/emotionally. Won't wonders never cease. Saying that there's no such thing as niccotine addiction in a crowded room would certainly get a lot of incredulous guffaws as those with better reality testing could smell the denial light years off.
I guess the studies showing Heroine is easier to break an addiction to than an addition to niccotine also somehow fail to scintilate your synapses.
But when one sets a thread up full of chronic whining and irate assaults at the majority who hold a whole different set of facts and reality testing in their consciousness, I'd think it fairly simple minded to expect a fair amount of flack in response. To then wail and whine about how unfair or ignorant or biased or unscientific a list of those facts are--or how putupon the whiners are left to feel by the honest responses of nonsmokers . . . wellllll . . . it just comes across as exceedingly myopic if not down right fool hardy and extremely disingenuous.
No, I don't expect you to take anything lying down. At least discussion wise. But it is an idle fantasy that some day the sun will shine, the birds will sing, the rainbow will show through--and a smoker will be struck with a life enhancing insight or bit of candor and self-reflecting honesty.
I'll not hold my breath for it--except in a smoke filled room. But one can dream.
This is called rationalizing. Its a normal defense mechanism for those in denial. It doesn't apply to you though, its just a coincidence you exhibit the same thought process as those who are addicts.
So, to you seeking comfort and convenience is abnormal behavior or signs of addiction?????
I go to a shoe store in another state because it is closer to where I live than the one in my state, and you call that rationalizing? I used to go to a restaurant in another state because it was closer to where I lived and more accommodating than a similar restaurant in the state I lived and you call that rationalizing????
I call it common sense.
Good way to save on gas too.
I've always been in the middle of a state,but my cousin,who lives in RI is as likely to shop in Massachusetts and Connecticut as Rhode Island.
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.