Why I am against smoking bans in bars
Jun. 16th, 2006 12:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cryowizardA long one re: this, so I decided to post it out separately.
FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A CHOICE.
THAT INCLUDES A CHOICE TO CONSUME A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE AND SLOWLY KILL ONE'S SELF.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A CHOICE OF BEING OR NOT BEING NEXT TO SOMEONE WHO IS CONSUMING A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE, WITH ALL THE HEALTH RISKS CONTAINED THEREIN.
AN ABSENCE OF EITHER CHOICES IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHICH LEADS TO TYRANNY.
Now, to the details.
Anti-smoking campaign started with putting hazmat labels on cigarette packs.
And that was reasonable -- it only affects smokers and is suggestive, not forceful. The smokers had a choice of ignoring the labels (which they en masse did).
Then they moved on to having non-smoking sections in restaurants and non-smoking rooms in hotels.
And that was reasonable. It kept the choice there -- those who cared for not having the smoke around simply asked for non-smoking sections or rooms.
Then they banned smoking on airplanes.
And that was reasonable, because a smoker in the close confines of a plane took away the choice of not smoking from fellow-passengers, plus an open flame is hazardous to the plane itself.
But then they started banning smoking in bars. Not introducing non-smoking sections -- banning.
And that's when 'reasonable' went out the window. That infringes on other people's liberty to smoke if they so wish. Why? Because tobacco is not a controlled substance, no matter how hazardous it is to ones health. And its consumption is a personal choice, and should not be regulated by the government. Banning takes the choice away from both smokers and bar owners. Bar owners who would want to have their establishments smoke-free, could have simply said so: NO SMOKING HERE. Those who CHOSE to smoke anyway, would have CHOSEN another establishment. So would the bartenders and bar staff who preferred to work in a smoke-free environment. But those who for whatever reasons didn't care or were the smokers themselves would have stayed in smoking bars -- BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. And if they get lung cancer and die -- they do so at they own will, cz these days everyone with half a brain knows that cigarettes are harmful. There's no law against killing yourself, is there.
There is no doubt that smoking slowly kills you. No sane person would dispute that. Yet tobacco is legal, and thus the government should keep its big fat nose out of what people do with it, bar a few very well defined cases.
Government defining what people do with themselves is a slippery slope to 1984.
And for dessert:
Alcohol kills a shit load of people every year. In 2003, 17013 people died in alcohol related driving accidents alone. Drunk drivers kill kids, alcohol abuse leads to broken homes, child abuse, violence, murder, prison, hunger, homelessness and death.
Should we ban drinking, too? Oh wait! They tried that already once. Do a bit of research into the history of Prohibition and find how, as a "do-goodie" social experiment, it was a dismal failure.
Never trust "The Government" or bleeding hearts who think they know better than the rest of us what we should do with ourselves!
FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A CHOICE.
THAT INCLUDES A CHOICE TO CONSUME A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE AND SLOWLY KILL ONE'S SELF.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A CHOICE OF BEING OR NOT BEING NEXT TO SOMEONE WHO IS CONSUMING A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE, WITH ALL THE HEALTH RISKS CONTAINED THEREIN.
AN ABSENCE OF EITHER CHOICES IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHICH LEADS TO TYRANNY.
Now, to the details.
Anti-smoking campaign started with putting hazmat labels on cigarette packs.
And that was reasonable -- it only affects smokers and is suggestive, not forceful. The smokers had a choice of ignoring the labels (which they en masse did).
Then they moved on to having non-smoking sections in restaurants and non-smoking rooms in hotels.
And that was reasonable. It kept the choice there -- those who cared for not having the smoke around simply asked for non-smoking sections or rooms.
Then they banned smoking on airplanes.
And that was reasonable, because a smoker in the close confines of a plane took away the choice of not smoking from fellow-passengers, plus an open flame is hazardous to the plane itself.
But then they started banning smoking in bars. Not introducing non-smoking sections -- banning.
And that's when 'reasonable' went out the window. That infringes on other people's liberty to smoke if they so wish. Why? Because tobacco is not a controlled substance, no matter how hazardous it is to ones health. And its consumption is a personal choice, and should not be regulated by the government. Banning takes the choice away from both smokers and bar owners. Bar owners who would want to have their establishments smoke-free, could have simply said so: NO SMOKING HERE. Those who CHOSE to smoke anyway, would have CHOSEN another establishment. So would the bartenders and bar staff who preferred to work in a smoke-free environment. But those who for whatever reasons didn't care or were the smokers themselves would have stayed in smoking bars -- BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. And if they get lung cancer and die -- they do so at they own will, cz these days everyone with half a brain knows that cigarettes are harmful. There's no law against killing yourself, is there.
There is no doubt that smoking slowly kills you. No sane person would dispute that. Yet tobacco is legal, and thus the government should keep its big fat nose out of what people do with it, bar a few very well defined cases.
Government defining what people do with themselves is a slippery slope to 1984.
And for dessert:
Alcohol kills a shit load of people every year. In 2003, 17013 people died in alcohol related driving accidents alone. Drunk drivers kill kids, alcohol abuse leads to broken homes, child abuse, violence, murder, prison, hunger, homelessness and death.
Should we ban drinking, too? Oh wait! They tried that already once. Do a bit of research into the history of Prohibition and find how, as a "do-goodie" social experiment, it was a dismal failure.
Never trust "The Government" or bleeding hearts who think they know better than the rest of us what we should do with ourselves!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 03:09 pm (UTC)But answer me this: how do you feel about the smoking ban in office buildings? How would you feel if smoking was allowed? Not just in designated areas in the office, but right in your own cubicle?
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 05:02 pm (UTC)I would object to someone smoking next to where I work. For two reasons. First, I dont want to sit in smoke all day. Second, someone smoking next to me when I have a permanent seat takes away my freedom of not smoking. It's the same reasoning as it is on airplanes.
That's why I would support dedicated small well-ventilated smoking rooms in businesses (there used to be ones!) so that smokers a) dont bother anyone else and b) dont have to be miserable downstairs stanidng out in the rain or snow freezing their asses off while they puff.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 09:20 pm (UTC)Note, I have not stated how I personally feel about smoking. And I am not some bleeding heart who's trying to do what is best for poor waitresses and bartenders. I am putting my lawyer hat on, and trying to argue purely on logic.