Smoking Bans Be Damned
Increasingly more European countries are making it impossible for smokers to smoke in cafes (and other buildings). Even when I want to smoke a cigarette at the railway station, I have to stand at a specific place where others are not bothered by my smoking. Ironically enough, they are not bothered by it regardless of where I smoke because the railway station is in the open air; the wind blows the smoke away immediately after I exhale.
But that does not matter to European lawmakers. It’s not about pragmatism, it is about ideals. And when it comes to ideals, European progressives are more extreme and more convinced of their own righteousness than progressives anywhere else.
If you talk about cafes, one wonders why the hell it is that the government feels it should be able to determine for cafe owners whether customers can smoke in their cafe or not. After all, the cafe is owned by a private citizen, not by the government. It is not a public building.
But it is to protect the employees, progressives say. Protecting the employees? If the employees don’t want to work in a cafe or bar where people can smoke, they should try to find another job.
OK, how about other customers then? Other customers should not be forced to inhale the smoke of others, should they?
No, they should not be forced indeed. Problem is; they are not forced to do so. No one is forcing them to go to a pub. Going to a pub is not required. If you don’t want to inhale smoke, don’t go to a cafe. Or if you do, go to one where the owner has decided that people are not allowed to smoke there (much like people often do with their own homes).
Furthermore, there is no such thing as ‘the right to go to pubs.’ If there were such an established right, non-smokers could perhaps force bar owners to forbid smoking in their bar. Since that is not the case however, they have nothing to back up their wishes.
The above probably makes a lot of sense to most of you, but not to progressive European lawmakers. Their intention is to protect citizens from themselves, the right to choose be damned.
Ironically enough, courts in Germany are now turning against said lawmakers. In Germany too, lawmakers wanted to make it illegal for people to smoke in bars. A German Constitutional Court, however, has now ruled that such smoking bans are illegal because they, among other things, threaten ’small corner bars with financial collapse.’
Perhaps this will be the first step in the right direction; putting the government back to where it is supposed to be. That means outside of private businesses.
thought ya quit?
For nine months I did.
Well, you realize that if you did quit this wouldn’t be an issue for you.
Actually, Tom, I grew up Mormon, never smoked a ciggy in my entire life, and still believe that many smoking bans are examples of overreaching by lifestyle authoritarians who delude themselves into believing they are freedom-loving progressives. What they really do with smoking bans is destroy small businesses, often mom-and-pop operations that operate on a shoestring. But, hey, I am sure they appreciate that Democrats give them bigger unemployment benefits after they destroy their business.
In L.A. this crowd just passed a ban on fast food restruants in poor areas under the assumption that poor people are too stupid to make the "right" food choices unless forced to do so. Seriously. And other cites are looking to model the move.
As a sufferer of asthma, I’m a little biased on this issue. I’ve never had to experience a bar without no-smoking laws in place, so I don’t know how it was. However, in restaurants, the smoking sections were often poorly ventilated and separated from the rest of the establishment.
The small-L libertarian in me would say no to smoking bans, though. However, here’s my problem with the smoking ban opponents.
Their chief concern is always "it’ll hurt business." It’s been three years since a smoking ban was implemented in my state (Connecticut). So why is it that on a good weekend night, wherever I go, the restaurants and bars are usually packed?
I don’t know, maybe it’s just my state and businesses in others really do suffer.
I’m a conservative on most issues.
However, I disagree with all of you.
Smoking should be banned because it harms the health of everyone, just like Marijuana should be banned, and just like every drug should be banned….. Period.
Of course we can’t ban more common drugs like Alcohol, and we really enjoy it in small quantities, so that is why Alcohol can be allowed. But it has no real benefits to society. In fact, it makes a society full of morons who are friends with each other simply because they drink with each other, when they should be friends with each other on more productive grounds/incentives.
You don’t know how annoyed I get when someone is smoking near me, OUT IN THE OPEN AIR. It’s still annoying, and people will not like you… So quit.
Meant to say above, "not well separated."
Also, Jonathan, according to your own argument, binge drinking can kill via idiots who drive afterward. Therefore, should it not be banned as well? Besides that, it can cause liver disease. Isn’t that enough reason to ban it?
Wow you’re young.
The counter argument that bars and what not are still full of people is a two fold flawed argument. First people by nature of health reasons are quitting – putting a no smoking ban has no effect on people quitting. Second the population growth often muddies the growth or declining patronage.
Your problem, it’s awefully damn annoying when people have to walk around you and you smell, dress offsnsive to someone, walk in an offensive manner, litter, fart, spit, gobble, nibble, chew. Get over it, you are on no moral ground.
It’s interesting to see how people define which freedoms are important and which ones are less so, and thus can be restricted. It seems to be true of everybody except the strict libertarians.
For example, liberals seem to define economic freedoms as less important than social ones, and thus will institute taxes and business regulations. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to feel the opposite, and thus promote bans on gay marriage and the like.
In my state, Rhode Island, smoking has been banned in public for about 5 years..give or take. I’m a smoker, and have no problems with it. I enjoy eating out often, and hate the smell of an ashtray when I’m trying to enjoy my meal. I don’t frequent bars or night clubs, and tend to be drawn to outdoor venues..so its really not an issue with me. I’m probably in the minority, but think smoking should eventually be made illegal, but the tobacco lobby is much to strong to ever be considered. We could probably accomplish this within a few generations and give tobacco growers a chance to redirect their efforts on other agriculture. If we payed attention to the amount of nicotine being put in cigarettes over time, possibly by lowering the amount every few years, and having a maximal amount permissible, eventually, people wouldn’t be addicted to nicotine and people wouldn’t smoke. Its probably not that simple, but smoking kills, second hand smoke kills, and it costs far too much in insurance premiums to be legal.
I object to this logic as the basis for public policies. Transfats cause cancer, high-sucrose corn syrup causes obesity, and high sodium causes high blood pressure. Sugar causes tooth decay. Video games cause sedentary lifestyles leading to obesity and heart disease. Computer use causes eye and neck problems. Should these also be banned by the government (in our own best interest, of course)?
When you empower the government to be paternalistic in making one vision of good health mandatory, you risk making the Soviet version of totalitarianism look good by comparison. It is worth remembering that a major technique that the USSR used to enforce ideological conformity was by declaring all dissenting ideologies….wait for it….unhealthy. The result was the establishment of an insane asylum that was in fact one of the most brutal prisons for political dissenters in the history of the world.
I’m not saying that anyone among the self-appointed lifestyle police actually sees that as a goal. Most believe their lifestyle choices to be objectively superior and many of them might even be correct. But their underlying logic is self-perpetuating and leads inevitably towards the kind of a world where the government can dictate every detail of individual daily life in the name of good health, tolerance, and other utopian precepts. In order to be meaningful in any way, personal freedom MUST include the freedom to make choices that seem less-than-optimal to the self-anointed elite.
The search for proof of the slippery slope need go no further than what is already happening throughout the United States. Smoking bans in restaurants were extended to all indoor air spaces, then to outdoor spaces, and finally are now being extended to private homes. And they haven’t stopped with smoking. Several large cities have banned the sale of transfats and other unhealthy foods and L.A. is using zoning laws to drive away businesses that sell food not enjoyed by the sticks-twigs-and-granola set. Chicago and New York banned the sale of fois gras and there is a move on in Chicago to ban eating beef. And these efforts are proliferating rather than declining.
Jason, I totally agree with your points..but nicotine is more addictive than heroine.. corn syrup, trans fats and sugar are not. Manufacturers of cigarettes have increased the amount over 11% in the past 10 years. Take nicotine out of tobacco and see what happens, let the market determine what happens to smoking.
More – I think that personal freedom must include the freedom to live in an ‘unhealthy’ manner. Isn’t ‘your body, your choice’ one of the guiding principles of Western civilization?
Bob, every attempt to ban something comes equipped with a claim that it is especially dangerous. You may believe that tobacco is "special", but that won’t stop a ban on it from proliferating into other areas, just like we have already seen happening.
I always find slippery slope arguments interesting…who uses them and how they’re applied.
I think it comes down to differences. If for you smoking is radically more dangerous that, say, fatty foods, then you wouldn’t consider it logical that a ban on the former leads to a ban on the latter. If you see the two as similar, then it logically follows. Of course this assumes that no new evidence shows up showing that fatty foods are indeed as dangerous as smoking.
The argument about gay marriage is similar. Some people say that it will lead to bestiality and pedophilia, because they see homosexuality as little different than those things. Most people do see a major difference and thus aren’t concerned one will lead to the other.