Smoking and Property Rights (http://www.mises.org)

http://www.mises.org ^ | June 19th, 2003 | William L. Anderson

[YummiBox]

Smoking and Property Rights

by William L. Anderson

[Posted June 19, 2003]

A week ago I received an email that was part of a mass mailing by an anti-smoking activist who was championing all of the new "smoke-free" legislation that is being churned out by state, local, and national governments around the world.

Although I am not a smoker, I must admit to having more than a passing interest in the recent assault on tobacco companies and individuals who use tobacco. (See the recent article by Candice Jackson and me on tobacco litigation.) For the most part, when I receive emails from people and organizations that I believe are anti-freedom, I discard them, but in this case I answered and the director and I then followed with an interesting exchange of emails. From what I read both in his responses to my question, and to the questions that he asked, I was able to look into what I can only say is a totalitarian mindset...

[jimt]

Does this mean that it's OK to burn pieces of shreded truck tires in a ceramic bowl after my restaurant meal if the guy who owns the place says its OK? Ever since I lost most of my hearing, I like to play my boom box at about 92 decibles. Is that OK if the guy who owns the bar that is open to the public says its OK?

If the owner says you can, you can. Of course, every owner is going to cater to his disruptive customer to the detriment of his business. Surely that's the smart thing to do.

Since its private property, I guess the employees don't have to wash after using the bathroom, keep rats/roaches out of the kitchen, avoid selling beer to 14 year olds, or keep food waiting to be sold refrigerated. Glad I read this. It is good to know that, as a restaurant/bar owner, I can do whatever I want, so long as its private property. "Hey, Paco get out of the can and never mind washing; it takes too long."

Major straw man alert !

There is no valid public health issue with second hand smoke, even according to the WHO, hardly an unbiased source. There is with the health hazards you cite.

If the owner of the business wants to prohibit smoking, that's entirely acceptable. Anti-smoking zealots who want to force their preference on others are not acceptable.

[eyespysomething]

Yep. And people who complain about the government not being able to do other things right (schools, mail, etc) or that they waste our money want to give them control over something else? Its all or none. The government isn't going to stop. Don't worry, pretty soon you'll have to have a permit to but fast food.

[MrLeRoy]

Does this mean that it's OK to burn pieces of shreded truck tires in a ceramic bowl after my restaurant meal if the guy who owns the place says its OK? Ever since I lost most of my hearing, I like to play my boom box at about 92 decibles. Is that OK if the guy who owns the bar that is open to the public says its OK?

Since its private property, I guess the employees don't have to wash after using the bathroom, keep rats/roaches out of the kitchen, [...] or keep food waiting to be sold refrigerated.

I support your freedom to do all of the above, so long as prospective customers are notified of these practices; ditto for allowing smoking.

avoid selling beer to 14 year olds

Separate issue, as 14 year olds do not have full adult rights.

[Baseballguy]

Your statement is too simple. If everything is black and white we would not need the government to dictate rights. What is scary it that it could be expanded. Take Cell phones in cars, kids in malls, talking with mouth full, combing your hair, brushing your teeth, wearing perfume, where you own land, the clothes you wear, the person you marry, how many children you have, what college you goto........

[Cathryn Crawford]

"...but the methods that they employ only can be successful when government seizes private property—with no compensation for the owners, of course."

Wow. Somebody finally got this right.

People (like my mother, unfortunately, with whom I have had many arguments about this issue) don't see the smoking bans (i.e. Dallas) as a serious interference of the government into private property. But when we start letting the government tell us that we can't smoke in a privately owned bar, and it tells the owners that they cannot decide that issue for themselves, we have a serious, serious case of the government overstepping its bounds by a mile.

[cinFLA]

What about the JR statement I posted makes your skin crawl?

[cinFLA]

Yes times has changed, these days a small group of extreme fanatics are dictating peoples life styles....... nothing to be so darn proud of.

One day you may wake up and realize it is not a small group of extreme fanatics.

[billbears]

""If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away," writes Mises."

"Loserdopian Alert"

I suppose you're in full support of the lawyer that's suing the fast food restaurants then. Nice representative of freedom you are. I guess the government really knows what's best for us then?

[MrLeRoy]

But when we start letting the government tell us that we can't smoke in a privately owned bar, and it tells the owners that they cannot decide that issue for themselves, we have a serious, serious case of the government overstepping its bounds by a mile.

We had a serious, serious case of the government overstepping its bounds by a mile when we started letting the government tell us that we can't smoke marijuana in a privately owned bar and tell the owners that they cannot decide that issue for themselves.

[Just another Joe]

Does this mean that it's OK to burn pieces of shreded truck tires in a ceramic bowl after my restaurant meal if the guy who owns the place says its OK? Ever since I lost most of my hearing, I like to play my boom box at about 92 decibles. Is that OK if the guy who owns the bar that is open to the public says its OK? Since its private property, I guess the employees don't have to wash after using the bathroom, keep rats/roaches out of the kitchen, avoid selling beer to 14 year olds, or keep food waiting to be sold refrigerated.

As long as you post on the door that you're burning shredded truck tire, playing the boom box at excessive levels, employees don't have to wach hands after whatever, rats and roaches are allowed, and don't want to refrigerate food, I don't see a problem with it.

[Just another Joe]

One day you may wake up and realize it is not a small group of extreme fanatics.

One day you may wake up and realize that the small group of extreme fanatics is after your ox.

[VaBthang4]

"I suppose you're in full support of the lawyer that's suing the fast food restaurants then. "

Oh geez...LOL...How desparate are you drips that you gotta get it twisted in order to make a point?
Get a life idiot and stop trying to leach off of every single subject that may remotely give you an oblique excuse to smoke dope.

Putz!

[billbears]

LOLOL!!! Now I'm a pot smoker!! Sheesh, can I guy not get a break around here? And the wit again. It's so striking, so fourth grade. Of course now I have to put the challenge to you. Find one post I have made in two and a half years that state I

A)smoke marijuana or
B) condone the smoking of marijuana.

I don't want an excuse however as a former tobacco smoker and a citizen of a tobacco growing state (no you little punk I have never used illegal drugs contrary to your sweeping generalization), I am quite tired of the government telling people what they can and cannot do within reason. And FYI, the same man that started this rage against tobacco is the same one starting the lawsuits against fast food. And considering the Bush administration is apparently not going to stop the lawsuits against tobacco, breaking even another campaign promise, someone has to stop these PC police.

[Sparta]

But when we start letting the government tell us that we can't smoke in a privately owned bar, and it tells the owners that they cannot decide that issue for themselves, we have a serious, serious case of the government overstepping its bounds by a mile.

Many so-called conservatives are willing to throw away property rights when it comes to regulating evil substances and the basic principle that my body is my property all in the name of saving people from themselves. They are also called the nanny statists.

[Sparta]

Why stop at cinFLA, let's invite his friends also.

[Old Professer]

You may think you are challenging the argument here while you merely reinforce it; it is precisely because these previous proscriptions have been made custom that new, even more strict and less justifiable health-related restrictions and bans are now succeeding.

Nobody here has attempted to silence your argument or to gloat over your obvious immaturity, yet you seem to be inexperienced at winning the approbation of your fellow man and take great pleasure in your smug assertions intimating that you have one-upped the opposite team.

[Great Dane]

That's why this is kind of fun. ;^)

Good to see you are so easily amused........ glad we can help. :-}

[Great Dane]

One day you may wake up and realize it is not a small group of extreme fanatics.

YES IT IS, they are very loud, and very well funded by big Pharma.

[A CA Guy]

Your rang?
What property was confiscated and for what reason? There was too much whining in the article to even try an read it all.
So far I think the smoking bans have been limited to areas of high populations where the smoke has become impossible to get away from.
Obviously if smokers had some common courtesy, a law would not be needed.
The smokers have rights and so do non-smokers. The fact that so many people live so close together now I think means more of each other's rights are getting a bit more restricted so everybody gets a some fair portion of their freedoms.
We no longer live in 1780 where you could holler in your own yard nude in the moonlight and there was nobody to see or care. It is a different world with people living on top of each other and adjustments happen so living together is reasonable.

What property was taken?