When our liberty goes up in smoke
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. I take a philosophical swipe at the premise upon which smoking bans are based. It’s called “When our liberty goes up in smoke.”
It’s actually a redux and rework of a statement I gave to the West Bend Common Council when West Bend was considering a smoking ban several years ago. It was pre-B&S. Thankfully, West Bend rejected the smoking ban.
Let’s lay it out straight.
The idea that allowing someone to invade someone else’s lungs is a right is perverse.
As the old phrase goes, your freedom of motion stops at the tip of my nose—and at my lungs.
This is just cheap politics, pure and simple.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2007 at 2203 hrs
Ah, another nanny-state supporter. No one is forced to go to a restaurant or bar. It’s a choice. I smoke. When I go out to eat, I usually sit in non-smoking, as most of those I go out with don’t smoke. They are perfectly willing to sit in the smoking section, in deference to me, but I always refuse. I came to eat, not smoke. That said, if I go out alone, or with other smokers, I then prefer to sit in the smoking section. People like you refuse to show me the same courtesy. You’d rather tell the owner of the establishment how to run his buisiness. Bravo.
Posted by Billiam on March 21, 2007 at 0716 hrs
Bans are not needed. The market will provide smoke free alternatives. In fact it already has. Milwaukee has several restaurants that are all non-smoking and some bars (Ardor and the Zodia Lounge are two that come to mind) too.
I hate to eat in a smoky place but I also know that I don’t have any right at all to go to a restaurant or a bar. The person with any rights in the equation is the owner of the bar or restaurant to decide whether he wants to allow or disallow certain legal behavior from his property.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1037 hrs
Joe, by your reasoning, the owner of a bar or restaurant should have the right to ignore the health code if they choose.
Smoking bans are analogous to health codes. You shouldn’t allow rodent or insect infestations, you shouldn’t store food at room temperature, and you shouldn’t allow carcinogens to float through the air.
However, people can be informed and choose not to frequent an establishment with carcinogens floating in the air. They usually won’t know about the others (until it’s too late).
The above mostly applies to restaurants. For bars, it’s a little different. Since the purpose of a bar is to consume drugs that are toxic to your body (alcohol), it is hypocritical to complain about smoking. I mean, who is going to sit there and consume one toxic chemical that causes thousands of deaths each year (alcohol) and complain about people consuming a different toxic chemical. Lots of innocent people are killed by someone’s alcohol use, too-does that mean we should ban it as well?
Anyway, that’s the issue from both sides of my brain (liberal vs libertarian)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1119 hrs
dj you are wrong. They are not like health codes. Smoking is legal period. putting mouse droppings in someone else’s food is illegal period. If what you are saying is the case then most food would not be able to be served at restaurants. Also Burger King and their fire cooked(makes smoke) meat should not be allowed. Almost everything is known to the state of California to be a carcinogen, does that mean that we can’t have matter in California? My and I suspect your basement has carcinogens(Radon) floating through it. They come from the bedrock that makes up SE WI. Do we ban basements? You have the right to not go into an establishment just like I have the right to smoke in one that allows it. You are not forced to go as you would have me forced to not.
Posted by fishaddict on March 21, 2007 at 1324 hrs
If a person were to make their restaurant or bar a ‘private club’ ie not necessarily open to the entire public, by charging a membership fee or some such would that give them leverage to get around a smoking ban in ‘public’ restaurants and bars?
Posted by Matt on March 21, 2007 at 1436 hrs
I think Yes
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1440 hrs
No, not as currently proposed, BUT the final draft hasn’t been decided yet.
Posted by Owen on March 21, 2007 at 1442 hrs
Owen, a bit of expansion please. I thought it only covered public places?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1445 hrs
The question was asked and they said that they would draft it in a way that private clubs would still be covered. They are still considered a place of business. The one place that might not be covered is a private club that is not for profit.
Posted by Owen on March 21, 2007 at 1521 hrs
You’re right, Bill and Owen. If you want to go eat in a smelly, stinky, carcinogen-filled restaurant, more power to you (btw: I’m an ex-smoker ... 30 years, yech).
Having said that ... the most complaints I ever hear are from smokers who claim they are being denied their right to smoke in places where smoking is denied. Sorry ... my right to be healthy overrides your right to make me ill in public places or in places where the decision to ban smoking was made.
But, I think you agree with me, there.
I agree, though, that it is too much for government to ban smoking in private places that make a conscious decision to allow smoking.
I just won’t frequent those establishments (however, Bill ... if we ever get together to play pool, I’ll acquiesce to your smoking).
Posted by Tim on March 21, 2007 at 1839 hrs
I just drove through a bunch of small towns today in which there is only one bar/restaurant in town and for miles around, so it looks like if someone wants a public drink or a bite and they don’t want to do that among carcinogens they are screwed.
Rights are rights but when it intrudes on someone’s health including the people who work there that is where the line is drawn.
If someone doesn’t have the class or civility to take their smoking somewhere else, tough crap.
Plus the right to make a few bucks again does not grant the right to offer up a health risk for customers and employees.
Sorry folks. Living in a society is a value and like all values to obtain to obatin it a price has to be paid. This stuff you sorta learn in kindergarten.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 2019 hrs
That’s assuming all of those small, out-of-the-way places were all “smoking permitted” establishments.
Sorry ... I understood your point, kr. I don’t like smoking and I did read earlier about your father. My grandfather died of emphysema ... he had it for the last eight years of his life. For the first five years he continued to smoke. I think smoking, for him, was beyond choice by that time.
I was referring more to private clubs and such.
Posted by Tim on March 21, 2007 at 2030 hrs
Tim, if we ever get together to shoot pool, I’ll likely not smoke. Smoke in the eyes is a bad thing when trying to do a passable bank shot.
KR, The problem is, nannies like you are chasing smokers out of their own houses! Where do you stop?
Posted by Billiam on March 22, 2007 at 1033 hrs
BS and you know it Billiam. No one against any one smoking in their own home. Keep it real.
Thanks for your thoughts Tim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2007 at 1146 hrs
Really Tim? There are legislators in a state out west, I don’t remember if it was Cal, Wash or Oregon, who were trying to outlaw smoking in your own house if there were kids, or if a neighbor complained. It’s not BS, it the logical progression for so many Nannies. It doesn’t get any more real.
Posted by Billiam on March 22, 2007 at 1705 hrs
Uh ... look again, that was not my response, Bill. However, burn the house down ... that’s my philosophy on the home front.
Posted by Tim on March 22, 2007 at 1952 hrs
Total Entries: 20002
Total Comments: 134062
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 07:41 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 08:20 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 116
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 08:43 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).