With their fanatical zeal, you have to wonder how far busybodies will go

Sun.Com ^ | 4 August 2002 | PAUL JACKSON

[SheLion]

"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke" -- Groucho Marx

Frankly, I'd far rather have the companionship of a woman than even a good cigar, but that's the way one of the greatest comedians in the world expressed his love for cigars.

But, I'll give it to Groucho, in a free society an individual should be allowed to make their own choices.

Duck Soup Groucho died at the ripe old age of 87, which surely shows smoking cigars was not bad for his health.

Sir Winston Churchill, arguably the greatest man of the 20th century, smoked cigars incessantly, drank like a fish, and ate as much red meat as he could get his hands on.

Winnie lived to be 91.

Adolf Hitler, along with Josef Stalwas one of the most evil men of the 20th century, was a vegetarian, abstained from alcohol, and would not allow smoking anywhere he was. Hitler shot himself in despair at the age of 64.

Now, would you rather pattern yourself after Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler?

Well, the anti-smoking zealots surely don't want to you to pattern yourself after Churchill and from their rigid, fanatical authoritarian and totalitarian psyche, you might well wonder just how far they'll go if they successfully ban smoking.

Some are already pushing the vegetarian agenda, others animal "rights."

Junk food and fast food are already being targeted, and some 'animal rights' types don't believe people should be allowed to keep pets -- that's enslaving an animal.

Yes, we're dealing not only with zealots here, but 100% proof crackpots. It's amazing politicians -- even Calgary's city council -- listen to them.

In my column "Orwellian dreams" (July 30) I pointed out how mean-spirited, petty busybodies --- some of them on city council -- are threatening to bring financial disaster to hundreds of small bars, restaurants and pool halls.

And at the same time throw thousands of young waiters and waitresses out of jobs as they enforce draconian smoking bans on these enterprising people.

I centred on Charlie Mendelman, owner of The Garage Billiards Bar and Restaurant in Eau Claire, who is typical of small owners who are now at the mercy of the city's stringent anti-smoking committee.

That column was well-received -- Charlie's a popular fellow in town -- but a couple of readers said I had neglected to mention an extremely valid point.

It is this: While the city plans to ban smoking entirely in "public" places, a bar, restaurant, pool or bingo hall or casino are not "public" places.

A "public" place is owned by the public -- through a government agency, usually -- but none of the bars, restaurants and other businesses now under threat from our aldermen are owned by the city or any other government.

They are owned by men and women who have often invested their life savings in them.

In a free society, such places are called private property.

That they are not public property where any citizen can freely enter is also evidenced by the fact that Charlie and his fellow bar owners are legally entitled to refuse admission to anyone they do not want in their establishments -- and can throw you out should your behaviour upset them.

Neither Mendelman nor any other bar or restaurant owner I have spoken with wants to prevent any other owner from voluntarily banning smoking in their establishments, they just want customers to have a freedom of choice in whether they want to go to a bar that allows smoking or one that doesn't.

Seems sensible to me.

Now here I'm indebted to American author and consultant Craig J. Cantoni, who put the matter of freedom of choice in a nutshell in a column in the Arizona Republican.

This is what Cantoni had to say: Free markets work this way: Person A allows smoking in his Mexican restaurant. Person B believes in the second-hand smoke hysteria spread by the anti-smoking fanatics, so he chooses to eat at a Mexican restaurant that bans smoking.

Person C refuses to eat at any Mexican restaurant because he does not want to clog his arteries with lard-drenched refried beans.

Person D does not worry about secondhand smoke or secondhand beans, so he patronizes Person A's restaurant.

All four people have made their own free choices and taken their own responsibility for their own decisions.

Seems pretty sensible to me.

To you, too, probably.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson, associate editor of the Sun, can be reached at paul.jackson@calgarysun.com. Letters to the editor should be sent to callet@sunpub.com.

[altair]

The truly evil are the ones that downplay the risks. People like you for example...

You've got a lot of nerve flaming people over English writing skills Doctor.