On The Proposed Smoking Ban

The proposal for a complete smoking ban in restaurants and bars
is once again coming to the fore. Ruminating upon the
idea, one realizes that many well-meaning (as well as what might be
described as 'manipulative') individuals and organizations want the
government to protect everybody from anything with a potential of
harmful health effects. One realizes that smoking is an acquired
taste, and that to those who do not partake of the pleasures of
tobacco the smell and smoke are extremely distasteful, if not
outright debilitating. One is aware of the studies (and so-called studies)
which purport to prove that breathing second-hand smoke is just as
bad for you as actually inhaling the stuff.
All well and good. But there are deeper issues to consider....Any reasonable person would support anyone else's absolute
right to NOT be exposed to tobacco smoke. Clean air is
unquestionably a good thing, and should be available to everyone who
desires it. I should want there be plenty of restaurants and bars
which cater to non-smokers so that they need not be exposed to smoke
at all. And as I recall, there are already many fine non-smoking
establishments right here in Delaware County for non-smokers to enjoy.

However -- I consider it fundamentally wrong to pass laws
which completely prohibit the public, communal enjoyment of a legal
(not to mention government subsidized) product. Every smoker
knows that tobacco tastes best right after a meal. In addition, we
have long associated bars with smoking, and for many folks a night
out smoking, drinking, dancing and/or listening to music constitutes
a good time -- and this will be the case whether or not non-smokers
understand or approve of the lifestyle choice.

To anyone who values liberty, to completely deny a significant
segment of our population who happen to enjoy tobacco the rightful
pleasures of gathering in a public venue to be with other folks who
also enjoy (or at least have no inhibiting objections to) similar
recreation is clearly an intrusion upon their civil
liberties. I would daresay that a total ban of tobacco in
public venues is fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempt to
establish such a ban should itself be outlawed!

Despite the worthy assertions and valid proclamations of the
anti-smoking camp, this is at heart a "pursuit of happiness"
issue. Non-smokers are stringently demanding that they be
able to go into any and all establishments and have their
smoking preferences accomodated, but smokers are to be denied
any (as in, NOT ONE) public venue in which to gather and have
their preferences accomodated.

Apparently, smokers are to be demoted to "second-class citizen"
status -- social pariahs who have no right to gather in a public
place and enjoy their particular recreational activity. This smacks
of outright discrimination against a select group of otherwise
law-abiding people, and is as fundamentally wrong as making
African-Americans sit in the back of the bus and not use the public
drinking fountain.

In addition, to completely ban smoking is also intruding upon
an establishment's right to cater to client preferences. If a
proprietor wishes to allow his/her patrons to smoke, it is their
right to do so. Whether or not a smoking ban would have a fiscal
impact on their business is an ancilliary point, in my opinion --
it's the unnecessary governmental intrusion in response to a
special interest group (non-smokers) I find fundamentally
objectionable.

Arguments that smoking places workers at risk is specious at
best. Servers and bartenders, when made aware of the job
description, have the option of taking or not taking a particular job
-- just as cops, firemen, soldiers, construction workers, truckers,
farmers, fishermen and a host of other job applicants know the health
risks associated with their prospective jobs, and can choose whether
or not they wish to apply for or accept employment. Again, I don't
feel it's the government's constitutional mandate to control the
types of jobs we choose to take, nor force an employer to accomodate
a segment of the population which does not represent the market
he/she wishes to target.

This should be the "Bill of Rights" with regards smoking in
restaurants and bars:

• 1) Every person has a fundamental right to enjoy a
  venue which supports clean air and a non-smoking environment, if
  they so choose.
• 2) Every person has a fundamental right to enjoy a
  venue which allows them to partake of tobacco (or to associate
  with friends who happen to smoke or have no inhibiting objections to tobacco use), if they so choose.
• 3) Proprietors have the fundamental right to decide for
  themselves whether they wish to accomodate smokers, non-smokers, or both in environmentally segregated areas.
• 4) Government has NO right to dictate on this issue,
  other than to require that all venues clearly post their
  particular "tobacco orientation" on all signs and advertising,
  thus enabling he public to make an informed decision as to where
  to spend the evening.

I am sincerely sympathetic to the pleas for clean air from
non-smokers, truly I am. But let's not trample a plethora of civil
liberties in the pursuit of the non-smoking agenda.

Technorati Tags: News

• ‹ previous
• 11 of 3748
• next ›