The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment

CNSNews.com ^ | May 26, 2003 | Robert W. Tracinski

[Tailgunner Joe]

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation - from New York City to San Antonio - has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbors. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbors, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behavior.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favorite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.

The tobacco bans are just part of one prong of this assault. Traditionally, the political Right has attempted to override the individual's judgment on spiritual matters: outlawing certain sexual practices, trying to ban sex and violence in entertainment, discouraging divorce.

While the political Left is nominally opposed to this trend - denouncing attempts to "legislate morality" and crusading for the toleration of "alternative lifestyles," - they seek to override the individual's judgment on material matters: imposing controls on business and profit-making, regulating advertising and campaign finance, and now legislating healthy behavior.

But the difference is only one of emphasis; the underlying premise is still anti-freedom and anti-individual-judgment. The tobacco bans bulldoze all the barriers to intrusive regulation, establishing the precedent that the rights of the individual can be violated whenever the local city council decides that the "public good" demands it.

Ayn Rand described the effect of this two-pronged assault on liberty: "The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories--with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington.

The liberals see man as a soul free-wheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread," or, today, when he crosses the street to buy a cigarette.

It doesn't take a new statistical study to show that such an attack on freedom is inimical to human life. No crusade to purge our air of any whiff of tobacco smoke can take precedence over a much more important human requirement: the need for the unbreached protection of individual rights.

[Roscoe]

Libertarians hate our society and deny that it has any rights.

[winodog]

I will not bother reading the rest of the thread. I was wondering how long before someone would say it is a waste of time debating with people who smoke.
I think smokers should have to wear a bubble helmet. That way they can breathe the smoke they enjoy so much 24/7. I also think they should have to swallow the filters. The extra fiber would be good for them and the rest of us will not have to see filthy cig butts everywhere we go.
Smokers talk about rights but they are the first ones to deny nonsmokers their rights.

[jmc813]

Why am I not surprised that you are a Mike Bloomberg syncophant?

[Gabz]

Thank you for your efforts. I know there were several others that were doing the same thing - but grass roots efforts just can't challenge the $6 million that was expended by the anti organizations to shove this down the throats of Floridians.

What irked me the most was that the anti organizations and all their money were able to use all that money to portray themselves as a grass root effort and spread their lies and propaganda about any opposition to it was funded by Big Bad Tobacco. Because there was no money - the opposition to it was unable to counter those lies.

As to our deal - with any luck we'll find a place with an outside deck or patio and that will further let you enjoy!!!!!

In all seriousness - I am more than willingly and always have been willing to work toward compromise. The problem with the militant anti-smokers is that when they are given an in (in compromise) they then want the mile and refuse to compromise.

I saw it happen, and had battled long and hard against it, in Delaware.

but as bad as the Delaware ban is - and it's worse than Florida's - at least it is just a statute not part of the state Constitution. Every once in a while something comes up that reminds me that it is probably a good thing that Delaware does not have initiative and referendum.

Sorry to keep bringing up Delaware, considering I no longer live there. But it's hard to disconnect from 21 years of one's life after only a month, especially considering how much political activism I was involved with during those years!!!

[Gabz]

Congratulations and good luck. If quitting smoking is what you want to do it should be a snap.

As I have said to any friends that have decided to quit - I will support you and assist you in anyway I can, but the first time you become an anti-smoker nico-nasty all support will immediately be withdrawn.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Gabz]

Smokers talk about rights but they are the first ones to deny nonsmokers their rights.

WRONG

Anti-smokers, such as yourself, talk about rights but are the first to deny the rights of private property owners.

That is what smoking bans do - deny the rights of private property owners. If you want a smoke-free bar or restaurant you have several choices - speak with the owener about his/her smoking policy, find an establishment with a smoking policy more to you liking, or OPEN YOUR OWN PLACE.

But for heaven's sake LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.

[winodog]

I never said it is right to deny private property owners the right to allow smoking.
I also never said anything good about gov.org.
They create two new problems for everyone they try to solve.

[Roscoe]

Ayn Rand described the effect of this two-pronged assault on liberty: "The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories--with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington.

She was quite a crackpot.

[Gabz]

You may not have said anything about denying property owners their rights but with your comment that is exactly what you implied.

I'm sorry you took offense at my comments - however I have been dealing with this issue for something like 15 years and the first thought that comes to my mind when some non-smoker starts talking about smokers taking away ther rights is: "spoon fed propaganda alert"

The idea of smokers denying non-smokers rights is one of the top 10 talking points of the anti-smoker movement.

[Lorianne]

This is where your thinking is flawed. Just because of inconvenience, you would create a law that restricts the liberty of 25% of the population.

Not me by myself, but the community of taxpayers has a right to set public policy. That's how our systme works. That's how all laws come about. If you don't like laws, say so. Otherwise, if you've agreed to live in a community of laws, you've agreed to abide by laws, even ones that you don't necessarily like. I don't like every law on the books. There is no constitutional garantee for me to like every law before I abide by it.

Just because of inconvenience people chew up and spit on the constitutional guarantees of the 2nd amendment. Do you see where this flaw in your thinking leads?

Huh? What has the 2nd Amendment have to do with anything. There is no constitutional amendment on smoking and zillions of other things. If you're making a slippery slope argument, all laws are a slippery slope. Again are you an anarchist? Do you wish to eliminate all laws? If not, how doe we determine which laws to make and who gets to make them?

[Lorianne]

Yes it is hard to control wind direction. However, if you've got a non-smoking section, which should accurately be called a no smoke section, it should be jut that. Otherwise, you've lied. I feel for the business owner trying to accomodate both, but the truth is, it is very difficult to accomodate both, and I don't have to pay good money to eat in a place where I'm subjected to cigarette smoke.

It is up to the business owner to figure out how to get my business and the business of other non-smokers. So far few have done a very good job of it. For that reason many restaurants went completely non-smoking without a government ban simply because they correctly figured that there are more non-smokers. They'd love to have the business of both, but if they have to choose, they were more and more choosing non-smokers because of the difficulty involved in accomodating both. This is the law of the marketplace, which is how the matter should be setteled on private property.

[jmc813]

She was quite a crackpot.

Do you agree with the part that you left out...

The liberals see man as a soul free-wheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread," or, today, when he crosses the street to buy a cigarette.

[cinFLA]

One the other hand, one smoker in a restaurant can screw up even the best of meals for everyone in the area.

If only smokers had recognized this, there probably would be FEW smoking bans ....

[Just another Joe]

Not me by myself, but the community of taxpayers has a right to set public policy.

I know that you have said that you don't support govt proscribed smoking bans but your words say otherwise.

If I don't believe a law is constitutional or right, civil disobedience is the route I would take.
Am I an anarchist? I don't think so. I would describe myself as a conservative with (small l) libertarian leanings.

[1Old Pro]

Politicians think they're Gods, when they take breaks from believing they're rock stars.

[Just another Joe]

All are invited. They just have to abide by the owner's rules. Or do you disagree that the business owner has the right to set his rules for customers to follow?

Your words form another thread.
Are you inconsistent just because of tobacco smoke?

[RW_Whacko]

"Harm" is not the issue. The issue is community standards, what are they and who gets to set them. That is what we're talking about here. "

No, what we are talking about are PRIVATE property rights, where I, as the business owner should be able to decide what I want to allow for MY customers, since I am the one that has to meet the payroll and pay the bills.

[cinFLA]

Please read the thread and don't pull me out of context.

[cinFLA]

Do you disagree that the business owner has the right to set his rules for customers to follow?