Ravenwood - 06/06/06 06:00 AM
In Howard County Maryland, 83% of restaurants and bars already prohibited smoking. But thats not enough for anti-smokers. They don't want anyone smoking, anywhere. Period.
And so, Howard County becomes just the latest Maryland county to violate private property rights and outlaw smoking in restaurants and bars. What's even more dispicable is that the government had forced restaurants to invest in seperate, ventilated smoking areas per a 1996 smoking ban. This may help explain why smoking was only allowed in 17% of area restaurants. By this time next year, those investments are all for naught.
Council member Charles C. Feaga (R-West County), who voted against the measure along with Council Chairman Christopher J. Merdon (R-Northeast County), said the ban was unfair to businesses that spent hundreds of thousand of dollars to create separate smoking areas.I had thought that people were generally pro-choice. But for some reason, when it comes to smoking there is no choice. If you want to enjoy a cigarette or cigar after a nice expensive meal, too bad. Smokers don't have any rights, and neither do business owners who want to tap that market."We promised people that if they put in the extra ventilation equipment, they would be okay. Now we're just cutting them off and telling them we know better than them about their business," Feaga said. "I just think that government is being too much of a Big Brother."
As we slide down the slippery slope, future smoke bans will include cars (where children are present), private homes (where children and/or employees may be present), and eventually outdoors (where smoke is free to roam where anyone might be present).
So why should a non-smoker care what happens to smokers and their stinky habit? Well, here is just a sampling of my reasons:
This is my body. There are many like it, but this one is mine. And any sort of nagging bullshit about what I can and can't put into it is wrong. This week it's smoking, next week it'll be drinking and fast food. These whiny little piss-ants aren't man enough to walk up and tell you to your face, instead they use the police power of the government to try to run your life. If you think I shouldn't have that extra roll, why don't you come over and try taking it off my plate? I'd like to see you try. It's all about freedom of choice. People have a wide selection of smoking and non-smoking restaurants from which to choose. But that's not good enough for some people. They want all restaurants to be non-smoking, just in case they some day want to eat there. Never mind what the property owner wants, his rights don't count. Temperance leads to crime which leads to death. In New York City where a single packet of cigarettes cost $7, gangs are killing each other over the selling of buttlegged cigarettes. It's big business on the street, and fights can break out over selling on the wrong street corner or at the wrong price. Teenagers just trying to make a buck have been gun downed for undercutting the prices of the local street thugs. Temperance leads to crime which leads to bigger government. Many of today's gun laws can trace their roots right back to the temperance movement. Prohibition of alcohol lead directly to the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the horrible RICO statutes wherein nearly anything can be prosecuted as a conspiracy to commit organized crime. Then there's the whole Drug Enforcement Administration which was stood up 30 years ago to arrest people for violating the various temperance laws. Currently the DEA has offices across the globe and costs Billions (with a B) of dollars to maintain. Temperance leads to crime which leads to terrorism. With a huge profit motive and all these dollars flowing around, much of the money eventually finds it's way into the hands of terrorists. You may think that buying bootlegged smokes is a victimless crime and that you're only sticking it to the government, but you may be inadvertently funding the next terror attack. Terrorists need money to do what they do, and they aren't above using our own temperance laws against us. Over-regulation leads to under-regulation. When prohibition of alcohol took affect, your average Joe didn't think twice about civil disobedience. Speak-easies popped up and alcohol was available for anyone with the money to buy it. The price went up, the quality went down, and any of the laws that controlled product quality or safety were moot. As neo-temperance takes hold people will gradually start to ignore anti-smoking laws. That is, when cigarettes are outlawed only outlaws will have cigarettes. When that happens, the government will be powerless to control what goes into cigarettes. They could become more harmful, even deadly depending on how cheaply they're produced. Laws governing the nicotine, tar, and carcinogens produced from tobacco will be worthless. And what about the children? There will be no way to limit access to cigarettes. All those age-limits that anti-smokers pushed through a few years back will be negated once cigarettes are sold in mass quantities on the streets. By over-regulating the product, they'll actually increase it's overall availability. The only thing between a child and a cigarette will be the conscience of the dealer.Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (3) top link me
What? No Comments!
At the very least you deserve a Thank You.
Good post.
The smoking ban has "worked" in WA state with only a very few bars not kicking out their smoking customers, (although they say they always do when the code enforcement officer comes around). Some bars had publicly proclaimed they would never enforce this nanny-state ban, but a couple of fines against the bar owners, (fines supported by "justice" system), stopped those outbursts.
The underground "illegal" smoking clubs are coming, or more likely, already here.
But, since I don't smoke, I don't care.... that is, until the bastards come for my Code Red.
Posted by: FishOrMan at June 6, 2006 2:11 PMI've already heard about "smoke-easies" popping up. Where there's a demand, there'll always be a supply.
Posted by: Ravenwood at June 6, 2006 4:56 PMBrother, you are on fire when it comes to topics like this. I know entirely too many people who otherwise hate intrusive government, yet for some reason have no problem with smoking bans.
Most seem to come around once they hear a well-stated personal property argument, but until then most see it as simply a smoker vs. non-smoker thing. Non-smokers simply like to stick it to the smokers and don't really realize that in the process they are allowing government to redefine exactly what "public" property means.
Come on folks, don't allow yourself to think this is reasonable, then expect the pro-ban crowd will disperse after successfully eliminating smoking - there is always something else to take on next.
This argument should never be looked at in terms of economics (Cleveland's attempt at a ban failed primarily because opposition convinced everyone that a ban was bad for the city, financially. Good result, wrong reasoning), health, or "worker's rights". This issue is and always has been purely about private property rights.
Posted by: roger at June 9, 2006 11:21 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
