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
You're history, Larry - it's your choice in how you go......do it quietly on your own or have it done publicly by others.
Coming from someone who says that abortion would be better for the baby than being born to a smoking mother - I think you have much more to answer for than any smoker.
What in heaven's name are you talking about?????????
I wonder which has more toxins? The emissions from our cars, trucks, vans, suvs, semi trucks etc. which emits fatal carbon monoxide in a closed garage, or second hand tobacco smoke? And which then is more harmful?
All I know is that I can smoke tobacco in a closed garage and it won't kill me like a car will kill me dead in a matter of moments.
Seems to me these tobacco nazis got some splainin to do. Since everyone drives a killer vehicle. And if the emissions which are ordorless and deadly don't kill you, the crash might.
"Did you also abuse a child by exposing her to tobacco smoke in an enclosed vehicle? "
Even smokers can't smoke in an "enclosed" vehicle. When I was a child and my dad smoked he always had a window open for the smoke to exit. I am 53 and in perfect health and my dad and others always smoked around me. Second hand smoke is a theory like evolution is a theory. But what I see is millions upon millions of vehicles emitting carbon monoxide. And unless you're homebound and unable to drive, you're guilty of polluting our enviroment with proven deadly toxins and exposing my children and your children to these deadly toxins.
"Poisoning children with smoking sh** is real. "
Then why am I like millions upon millions of others like me still here at 53 having been exposed to it since birth?
If your theory were true, I should have been dead long ago from exposure. Do I have some sort of miracle cell protecting me? I don't think so. You're theory won't hold water.
Go "enclose" yourself in a garage and crank your car. See what happens. Freepmail me later if you can. If you survive, and you won't, then surely you will know which is more deadly. Second hand smoke or emissions from cars?
"Get a life. Take your smoke outside. "
Yea, go outside and breath the deadly emissions from cars.
If you expose your children to these deadly emissions, by your standard, you are abusing your children. If you drive your children to school, you are risking their lives in a most proven deadly and dangerous manner.
What are you talking about???????
My daughter is sleeping peacefully in her room right now.
You're the only one I know who has suggested that abortion would be better for the unborn than being born to a mother who smokes.
I'll sit in a garage with group of smokers for an hour long before I will sit in the same garage with a motor vehicle running.
Over the years I have found it interesting that the anti-smokers are not willing to take the challenge.
"Over the years I have found it interesting that the anti-smokers are not willing to take the challenge."
Heck no they won't take the challenge. It would shatter their belief system. Emissions from cars is much more harmful and deadly to children than any tobacco. Course they have to drive like the rest of us...exposing ourselves and our children to these deadly toxins. But somehow in their simplistic view it is the tobacco that is most harmful, and not the deadly emissions from vehicles. Go figure.
Then again, maybe it's because they can't see or smell the deadly toxins being emitted from vehicles....while they can see a smoker and his smoke and the stains it leaves. Now that's empirical data. So in their simple minds, if they can't see it or smell it,(like carbon monoxide emitted from billions of vehicles), then in their view of things, it's not a factor.
Word to smoking nazis. A little smoke from tobacco will not kill you. But that car you drive can kill us all in a heartbeat via emission or impact. And if you are risking your children by exposing them to these deadly emissions while driving them around, and if we apply your rule, you are abusing your children.
One final word to you before I retire. If you pass the car keys to your child as we do eventually, you are putting your child at high risk. Need I cite the stats? Is that child abuse?
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.