I have spent a great deal of time reading comments and arguments regarding the smoking ban proposals and have to shake my head in utter disbelief. How have we gotten to this point in time? It is definitely a world gone mad with the rules going even crazier.
I don't even think smokers are saying that smoking is healthy or a good choice for anyone. But that isn't even what the smoking ban is all about, though some can't seem to get a grasp on that. They are too busy arguing about the effects of second hand smoke as defined in some report or other. Yeah, but what does that have to do with smoking bans in private businesses where customers are there by choice? There by choice rather than necessity?
It is one thing to ban smoking in government owned facilities where the public might be forced to go to do business, but quite another to do so in a bar or restaurant that no one has to go to in the first place. It is then, because it does happen to be a privately owned business, that the owner(s) should have the choice of going smoke-free or catering to the smokers and smoker friendly consumer if they so choose. That is the true issue! The right of the business owner to decide whether the business will serve the non-smoker or the smoker and smoker friendly -- not the issue of whether smoking or second hand smoke is good for anyone ever.
If smokers wish to get-to-gether and share second hand smoke, what is that any business of the non-smoker? No one is asking them to partake. No one is forcing them inside the door of a business where smokers gather, so why should they feel they have a right to go inside and demand there be no smoking because they have decided to be there?
This is not a thing about a smokers' rights or a non-smokers' rights, but rather, the rights of the business owner to cater to the customer of choice!
Shouldn't a simple sign on the door that indicates it is a business that caters to smokers be a clue to non-smokers that can't (or won't) tolerate smoking to turn around and go somewhere else? If not, why not?
(We don't live in a socialistic country yet, but looks like we are headed there or worse. May we stop ourselves in time.)
4 comments:
careful in your 3rd and 4th paragraphs. the same arguments you make could be made, then, for them to allow stripping or any other lewd behavior.
we conservatives have to always keep in mind that there is, indeed, a role for the government in such matters. it's called a police power, the long-recognized authority to protect the health, safety, and morals of its citizens.
i'm not saying a smoking ban, especially a statewide ban, is the way to go, but if 2nd hand smoke is indeed harmful, then the state has as much right to step in as it does when it steps in for any other health code enforcement issue at restaurants.
Thank you so very much for taking the time to post. I truly appreciate that you did.
I understand your point that my argument could be utilized by those who would wish stripping or other lewd behavior, but there is a difference. Smoking, good or bad, is still legal to do, while the other behaviors are generally not.
One other point is...
If a business owner wishes to have a restaurant STRICTLY for smokers, how can second hand smoke be an issue for the health code enforcement to deal with? It's legal to smoke but not to smoke in the presence of other smokers because then one would be exposed to second hand smoke?
The fact that smoking is legal is irrelevant. What matters is that unwanted smoke imposed on you without your consent is an unacceptable act of force.
You cannot lawfully strike or spit on another person. To do so subjects you to prosecution for assault and battery.
There is no reason why we should consider imposing of cigarette smoke to be socially acceptable. Like spitting, the habit of cigarette smoking should be confined to private spaces away from the public, and indulged in only among consenting adults.
Our Chinatowns used to have opium dens, where addicts could pursue their vice privately and out of sight. We need something like that for cigarette smokers today.
I am not suggesting imposing unwanted smoke on anyone. If a business owner wishes to operate a business that caters to smokers, then it is the non-smoker that imposes unwanted smoke upon self, if he or she enters that smoking establishment.
Post a Comment