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 are confusing them with facts. naughty you.
Ok, one more. When our child becomes 18 and we can no longer decide for them(though we know we should and we want to), should we prevent them from joining the armed forces to protect us? And since we know the risks at hand, shouldn't we take measure to prevent them from joining the armed forces? And when we don't take measure to prevent them from joining knowing full well the risks involved, isn't this a form of child abuse?
I seriously doubt you will get an answer.
I outed him and he knows that I know who he is.
He's a troll and has been cyber stalking me for longer than I care to admit. He's been kicked off of FR several times in the past few months under various screen names - I'm curious to see how long he lasts this time.
"I seriously doubt you will get an answer."
Perhaps not. I was looking forward to some sort of honest rebuttal to refute. Obviously honesty is not a factor for some smoking nazis.
"I'm curious to see how long he lasts this time."
wow! Looks like yet nother slanderer bites the dust! Message to slanderers...don't personally attack the poster, and don't slander the poster. If you can't argue your position reasonably and honestly, well...adios...catchya later...sweet dreams...and happy trails to you.
WOW - I wonder what happened.
I had agreed to not hit the abuse button and I didn't - but obviously someone must have done so.
But as I had suggested last night - s/h/it wasn't going to answer any straight questions anyway.
In all my years here I have never hit the abuse button. Sure, I was tempted a few times...and once in my career someone hit me and my post was removed...in the smokey backroom of all places.
Anyway, it wasn't me...although I thought the poster was particularly cruel and abusive toward you.
He cut and pasted some of my comments to our troll from the other night, (and denies being the troll) as well as some of my other comments......
It's really amusing as he is claiming I've gone round the bend and should be in jail because belonging to such groups like FR are illegal.
The guy is delusional and one of his supporters joins in with him on bashing me, smokers in general and FR........a couple of others are sort of in the dark because I've nevr posted on that board under my own name.
He himself admits to being kicked off here in the past, but has always denied ever posting here. Yet he still comes looking for me......some people need to get a life.
whoever h/s/i is, h/s/i is not in america nor an American.
Looney tunes at any rate.
They are both Canadians - I'm sorry, I should have said that.
If nothing else, it gives credence to my position this one person has been stalking me, even if he is telling the truth (which I doubt) about not being the troll from the other night.
I appreciate you bearing with me, and being so supportive regarding the problem.
What smokers are advocating here is that property owner decide what legal behavior will be allowed on their property. Only in this way can supply and demand accommodate everyone. Some owners will elect for whatever reason, be it personal or economic, to have their establishment be a smoking facility, and some will not. Then patrons can then make decisions as to whether they wish to do business there. Since smokers are a minority, it is a safe assumption that popular vote would most likely result in the majority electing to ban smoking, since they have nothing to lose in this question. But, (I'm paraphrasing here) democracy should be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner! Should the rights of any group be denied simply because they are in the minority? In fact, we DO have the technology to make the air in indoor smoking facilities CLEANER than in non-smoking establishments without these ventilation systems, particularly restaurants, as cooking creates pollutants. We are WAY too focused on taking away personal freedom rather than finding solutions. It amazes me how willing most people are to give up their rights for the mere appearance of a reduction in risk. This IS a slippery slope, and our attitude about the smoking issue has already opened the door to a multitude of other "nanny" issues. Life is not, and never can be, risk free. To have a "life" without risk is not life at all, but rather "existence." Freedom, by definition, is CHOICE.
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.