Posted on 02/21/2005 8:07:28 AM PST by SheLion
Despite intense lobbying from anti-smoking fanatics, Elsmere’s city council kept residents’ property rights from going up in smoke by voting against a smoking ban in public places, including privately owned businesses.
Proponents of a ban seized on a limited proposal by Elsmere Mayor Bill Bradford that would have banned smoking only in city buildings. However, Bradford showed courageous leadership by casting the tie-breaking vote against the plan when the ordinance presented to the council went far beyond his original objective.
Opponents said such a ban would overtax Elsmere’s police department and harm businesses. Dottie Baxter, owner of JB’s Roadhouse in Elsmere says she doesn’t tell the city how to do its business and she expects the same courtesy in return.
Baxter is right. Private property – even those establishments which employ a large staff or provide services to many people – does not belong to the public. Property owners, not government do-gooders, are the rightful decision makers about whether legal activities like smoking should be allowed.
Proponents of bans often aim at restaurant owners by comparing rules against smoking to regulations protecting diners from impure foods. However, the comparisons are not analogous. Restaurant patrons have no advance warning of contaminated foods, but are aware up-front of the presence of second-hand smoke by simply using their noses.
The law should provide appropriate legal reprimand for restaurant owners who engage in acts that injure patrons or workers. But customers are acutely aware of the hazards of second-hand smoke and can easily avoid the risk by leaving. No one is holding a gun to non-smokers’ heads and forcing them to go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking.
Consumers increasingly choose to avoid second-hand smoke. As a result, more restaurants are making their establishments smoke-free. But they should be allowed to voluntarily make that decision. Governments should butt out.
Sources:
“Elsmere rejects smoking ban” by Kevin Eigelbach, The Kentucky Post
“Bloomberg Smokes out Property Rights” by Robert A. Levy, Cato Institute
A Ky. Ping, Please. :^)
Property owners, not government do-gooders, are the rightful decision makers about whether legal activities like smoking should be allowed.
Yes. And what about the 7 states that have forced a smoke free agenda? How can these business's get their Freedom of Choice back????
They may eventually get their rights back,She,but I probably won't be around to see it.
I smoke,you see,and am destined for an early death! LOL
Well, from the "authority figures" in HERE, I guess I am too. heh!
Another unhappy group are the owners of the businesses that had already gone smoke free.............the government took away their market.
This is why it always blows my mind when they claim it's to "level the playing field"........excuse me, but it was already level, before the nanny-do-gooder-big-brothers went and messed with it.
Great article, but this got my attention. The myth is being perpetuated even in an honest article. The number of people genuinely affected by SHS is minuscule. The number of people claiming to be "injured" by SHS is enormous by comparison, and evidently uniformly neurotic.
Every truly scientific study ever made on SHS has found no significant statistical connection between SHS and the average non-smoker.
Amen! Smoking is my vice, I'll admit. I am glad that I can buy a pack of cigarettes here in KY and still afford to pay my bills!
Thanks for the PING
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.