Posted on 11/07/2002 2:04:46 PM PST by prman
Two decades ago, before it became fashionable to detest tobacco products, anti-smoking zealots used to argue that their interest in banning smoking only extended to prohibiting the practice on plane flights. This was only reasonable, they argued, because aircraft ventilation systems had no way to filter smoke-tainted air, and non-smokers had no recourse if they didn't want to inhale it.
This proposed restriction was presented to the public as the outer limits on curtailing people's freedom to enjoy smoking. But with the stealth that guile brings, the long march to stamp out smoking everywhere was under way. Buoyed by the relentless drumbeat of sympathetic media propaganda and vested interests in the health care industry, the wheels of disapprobation ground inexorably finer by a thorough demonizing of tobacco producers and users.
The overt demonology became political correctness, leading corporate executives, facility managers and assorted government functionaries to curtail smoking in the workplace. Everyone has seen the sorry spectacle of huddled groups of beleaguered smokers, furtively sneaking puffs outside their workplaces in the cold and damp.
Demagogues like California Congressman Henry Waxman and Savonarola-like activist John Banzhaf have called for Draconian tobacco regulation far and wide, encouraging tort lawyers across the country to belly up to the bar and file whatever personal injury or class action lawsuit will allow them to pick the pockets of tobacco companies.
Not to be outdone, state and local politicians in league with anti-smoking groups push ballot measures in numerous states and municipalities that either increase already onerous tobacco taxes or outlaw smoking in various public areas and workplaces.
Following similar measures in California and Delaware, Michael R. Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, is now pressuring New York's City Council to ban smoking outright in bars and restaurants in all five boroughs. Since 1995, smoking has been prohibited in city office buildings and in restaurants seating more than 35 customers. The new proposed restriction would affect an additional 13,000 establishments.
This heavy-handed coercion is all done under the banner of health care advocacy, which, in the minds of political animals, always seems to trump the rights of individuals to pursue their own pleasures, unless the lawmakers' own pockets are at stake. The recent defeat of Michigan's Proposal 4 ballot initiative, which would have redistributed tobacco settlement monies to private health care organizations, was heartily cheered by state politicos, since they were being used to fund other projects.
This long-running anti-smoking jihad is not unlike the Zeitgeist demonizing the liquor industry that brought about Prohibition in 1920. In the similar attempt to solve all sorts of social problems, proponents argued that by reducing the consumption of alcohol, crime would decrease, health and hygiene would improve and the tax burden of building prisons would be lifted.
As time would show, the Noble Experiment was a miserable failure. In the long run, alcohol consumption actually increased, organized crime and corruption got a foothold, an underground economy was born and the touted health benefits were not realized.
There is no question that heavy long-term smoking represents a health hazard to the smoker, as does habitual alcohol consumption for the heavy drinker. And while some argue that "second-hand smoke" might jeopardize the health of people in close proximity to smokers, over-consumption of alcohol certainly modifies the public and private behavior of drinkers, often to the detriment or peril of those around them.
The question remains: Should government regulate smoking as it tried to do with alcoholic beverage production and consumption? Have smokers no rights? Should a man who risks his investment in a bar or restaurant be put at an economic disadvantage because he is proscribed from allowing smoking in his place of business? Hasn't he the right to establish his own rules and policies to attract the customers he wants? After all, those who are offended by tobacco smoke also have the right not to patronize his restaurant.
The anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol crusades are cut from the same cloth. Today, anti-smoking forces are mercilessly metastasizing to kill off the last redoubts that remain for those who might enjoy a postprandial cigarette, cigar or pipe.
This is not only wrong; it is, as Prohibition showed, against nature. People must be free to choose – even if it means their own poison. The more intense the regulation, the more potent tobacco becomes as people find other sources to pursue their pleasure.
The spreading cancer of the anti-smoking Puritans should be of concern to free men everywhere. As economist Ludwig von Mises cautioned, "Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."
Barrett Kalellis is a columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.
Irrelevant to the argument.
Entirely relevant to the argument.
So, your argument is that, because the law has been changed to ban smoking in workplaces, bars, restuarants, etc. we should accept it and "get over it"?
You do leap to conclusions. My argument is that the "state has the right to ban smoking. If you disagree then it is your right to work to repeal those laws or move to a more friendly jurisdiction.
lewislynn,
Reviewing my last post to you, I feel I do need to retract it. Calling someone an "anti-smoking nazi" is one thing. It is said in a semi-satirical/semi-serious context to make the point about the absurdity of hating us for our lifestyle choice.
However, my last post sailed too close to the wind, in almost directly comparing you with Hitler's nazis.
Now, obviously no-one in this argument wants to exterminate smokers (literally). So direct comparisons with Hitler's nazis is abhorent to anyone and not what I intended.
Being a smoker, I do tend to get very worked up about this issue from time to time, as it is very personal to me.
I disagree with you and your attitude towards smokers - we are ordinary people, worthy of your respect and consideration regardless of how much you dislike our smell - however, I know you are not suggesting smokers be exterminated, as the nazis did.
Now, having made my mea culpa, let's get back to it - you are wrong and I am right!!
Can you explain to me exactly why smokers should not be allowed to enjoy their smokes in some restuarants and bars?
Afterall, we make up about 25% of the population.
Given a choice, owners of eating and drinking establishments would cater for us. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so, and why shouldn't we be catered for?
You have plenty of non-smoking places to go. Why is it so abhorrent to you that we might have a few places to go?
They can in some; in some others it is against the law. Simple.
I still remember when there was no place to go without smokers. One of the reasons there is a total ban movement is because the owners played only lip service to setting up non-smoking areas.
Is it your position that government should dictate how a private business has to be run? What ever happened to personal responsibility and choice? If I elect to allow smoking in my restaurant, and you, as a nonsmoker, chooses to patronize, what right do you have to dictate how I have to run my establishment? In the words of Norma Vincent Peale, choose another restaurant more to your liking.
"I think you ought to take that down to about 50% at the most. For every smoker there is ,at least IMO, one family member or friend that doesn't really care about ETS.
They do care but are too polite to say anything. Also, you forgot about all the smoker's kids that are free to breathe cleaner air."
If you think cleaner air is advantageous, why aren't you working to prevent diesel exhaust, pesticides, and chemical waste into that air?
For every smoker there is ,at least IMO, one family member or friend that doesn't really care about ETS...
...and for every smoker, there is at least one closet smoker who, in public, demonizes tobacco but lights up the garage or back yard "when no one is around."
Tobacco is still a legal substance but smoking is illegal where non-smokers have a right to breathe clean air.
Get over it and live within the law.
BUMP
I want it made illegal completely. And then I want eveyone on the record as being an anti-tobacco zealot sent a monthly bill to make up the tax difference. I would be immensely satisfied with that solution.
Is it a state's right to run a business in a free enterprize country? If I allow smoking in my restaurant and you have the freedom of choice as to whether you patronize my establishment, who has the responsibility for you?
Tobacco is a legal product and my business required a considerable investment. If a state or municipality endangers my business, shouldn't the tax payers be required to reimburse me?
BTTT
If a state or municipality endangers my business, shouldn't the tax payers be required to reimburse me?Endangers your business? Did the state/municipality say anyone in particular can't patronize your business or did the state/municipality say simply no one can smoke there?...Do your customers come to your restaurant to smoke or to eat?
Alcohol is a legal product too but you can't sell it or even drink it anywhere you want to either.
Remember this anti-smoking insanity the next time some stupid Rat tries to say he believes in personal freedom from government and we don't. The Rats believe in four "freedoms" only: Abortion, drugs, porn, and flag-burning. The rest is strictly up for grabs.
Following site may be of use to you. Hope you don't posess the cancer genes
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/8/12/1065#T1
If you think the kids have fresh clean air to breath, check out the EPA's report on Diesel Exhaust. Much more dangerous than secondhand cigarette smoke, more carcogenic, smaller particles to clog lungs, and more prevalent in the air. Besides, its unescapable.
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.