Property rights are under assault in the November Florida election. The proposed Amendment 6 to Florida's Constitution would make it illegal to smoke in all workplaces and attached grounds, all restaurants and attached bars, and all "public places".

While I am not a smoker, nor do I live in Florida, I find the assault on property rights to be a great concern. People need to realize that places that are open to the public are NOT public property. Creating governmental nanny laws that tell business owners that they are not allowed to permit smoking on their property, or in their establishments is a violation of their property rights. If there is a demand for non smoking restaurants and bars, free market economics will drive business owners to meet that demand. Business owners should be permitted to cater to smokers or non smokers as they wish. Just like smokers and non smokers should be free to support establishments that cater to their interests and tastes.

Proponents of such legislation say that business owners won't be financially affected. However, when the Peoples Republic of California passed a similar ban, over 500 restaurants closed and business fell off 25%. Also, some restaurants have been trying to cater to both sides by investing in highly efficient ventilation systems. With Amendment 6, that investment is lost.

Proponents also point to employees who work in bars in restaurants as a reason to ban smoking. However, most people in the restaurant industry make the bulk of their money from tips. If you ask them, you'll probably find out that chasing their customers away from tables is not something they are in favor of. When people are no longer able to sit around a table and enjoy a few drinks, some smokes, or a fine cigar, those tips are going to fall off sharply.

The second hand smoking scare is pretty remarkable. It started about 7 years ago when the World Health Organization (WHO) started studying the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Long before the results of the study came back, pleasure police recognized ETS as a good way to advance their agenda. They immediately started demonizing and attacking ETS. In 1998, the WHO concluded their study, and immediately tried to bury the results. Under pressure from the British media, like the London Telegraph, the WHO finally released their findings. Although the WHO released a biased and misleading press release entitled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer," the facts were clear. When using a statistically large sample, there was no significant risk for non smokers that lived with or worked with smokers.

What it comes down to, is special interests telling you what you can and cannot do with your property, and trying to control your behavior. Even when they are sitting at home, they don't want you lighting up in that bar down the street. They twist the facts, spread false information, and mislead the public just to advance their agenda. For those of us that are non smokers, it is very easy to deny others their rights. However, it says much more about your character when you stand up in favor of protecting rights you may not necessarily have an interest in.

Remember, the pleasure police may not be attacking a particular activity that you enjoy, but they may soon be. How long before red meat is banned, or coffee. Movements are already under way to add sin taxes to coffee and soft drinks, ban 'politically incorrect' coffee, fast foods, and meat and animal by-products. If you had told people 10 years ago that a smoking ban was on the way, they would have laughed at you. What will we be saying that about 10 years from now? src src src