Sorry, your area of expertise is probably more in this realm:
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
And with the price of gas right now.............why would I drive 25-30 miles south to buy the same item for the same price by going 10 miles north? So what if I happen to be crossing the state line. Right now it just so happens that I live only 8 miles from the state line, when I lived in Delaware it really didn't matter because the maximum drive to a state line is 35 miles. It didn't take me any longer to go to a bar in Maryland than it did to go to the place I always went in Delaware prior to the ban.
I just got off the phone with hubby who is out of town for the week attending a class for his job. 8 of the 10 people in the class are smokers. One of the non-smokers lives in Maine, but is originally from Maryland and used to be a bartender at one of the resort places- he commented that the smoking bans are stupid and that the businesses in Maine are being seriously hurt.
Non-smokers get it, anti-smokers never will.
Pity how you and minion drive the others off. I, too, am moving on to other threads. You two can be left holding hands and talking to yourselves.
CYA!
I hate to say this, but I hope they all close! The professional anti's forced a full restaurant non-smoking in 1999. You think the bars, taverns and sports inns would have stood up for themselves last year when the Board of Health said they were forcing everyone else into going smoke-free.
But no, they sat on their rumps with their thumbs up their tweedly dees, and now they are being "seriously hurt?" Pity.
I'm moving on. These two nitwits have turned my stomach. Have a great night, or maybe I will see you on another thread!
Big Hugs!
OH, EXCUSE US!
I didn't realize you had a
smokers mundane mutual mental masturbation meeting here!
I had the impression your fiesty, combative, provokative title intended to encourage non smokers to come to your thread so you could rant and rave at them!
My mistake. Guess I was clueless.
By all means, be my guest--fondle your little ciggy butts and your 6' marble ciggy idol to your hearts content. I don't need to intrude, unless you rattle my cage, again.
Good guess.
What you fail to understand is that tobacco smokers have finally gotten sick and tired of being demonized and blamed for nearly every illness known to mankind.
We have nothing against non-smokers and are willing to cooperate with them. Anti-smokers are another story. Your posts have shown you are in the latter rather than the former group.
I understand exactly what you are saying and where you are coming from.
WHAT YOU FOLKS SEEM TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND
is a basic difference between being
ANTI
smokING
and
ANTI
smokER!!!!
Sheesh!
It is also A GROSS EXAGGERATION THAT SMOKERS ARE BLAMED FOR EVERY ILLNESS KNOWN TO MAN!
Sigh.
Sorry, your area of expertise is probably more in this realm:
Alas,
your philosophical, mystical, metaphorical skills have outpaced my comprehension.
. . . unless perhaps . . . your message is that you prefer mousy opponents.
Cheers.
Adieu.
I'd think people who blow smoke in other's lungs would be greatly MORE tiresome.
I realize it's all a matter of perspective.
And the million man March begins just as soon as they find a place that allows smoking.
I know you folks don't believe this but its true. In fact, we didn't even know these neigbors smoked. Now we must get them removed.
42. But the question is gonna take a really big computer.
Sigh all you like. About the only illness I have not seen some supposed authoritative organization blame on smoking is AIDS - but that doesn't stop the anti-smokers from accusing smokers for that as well.
Good grief, the State of Delaware has an A-Z listing of illnesses that have been "scienticially linked" to smoking or exposure to smoking including knee injuries, nightmares and zits.
I guess you know a lot more about such diseases causing smoking than I do.
The main ones I know about are emphysema, cancer and heart trouble.
And that research is reasonably accurate enough and solid enough, for sobering reflection, in my book.
Respond to my comments to you in post #619 and then we'll talk.
My Dear - you have just been so spot on tonight!!!!!!
I'm going finish reading the posts here, but then I actually have some real stuff to deal with and then I have a date with a pillow!!!!!
I do not know a smoker who will disagree that smoking increases the risks of those things.
I have yet to see any research that shows smoking WILL cause those things. Nor have I ever read any research that shows that exposure to someone else's smoke (SHS) WILL cause any of those things.
Anyone that claims smoking will cause those problems is a liar and only paid professional anti-smokers will claim that SHS causes them.
The difference between my statements and yours is a matter of using the proper usage of words. "Can" does not equal "will" anymore than "may" equals "shall."
I'm not a lawyer, but I've written enough legislation and amendments to such to know what I am talking about.
My understanding from my Hawaiian friend who's an expert on such studies, is that there are solid studies showing the hazardous influences of SHS on those around smokers.
I need to dig up his reply to that issue and post it on the thread, though it would, no doubt, convince none of those 'communicating' [to use the term loosely] with me.
I don't know the degree of causality. I don't think raw 100% causality makes a great deal of difference if smoking is the critical factor pushing one over the edge of significantly increased death rates at significantly earlier ages.
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.