People who annoy are many; New Jersey Drivers, people who have bullet stickers on their cars, and Notre Dame fans. But people who really get my blood boiling are those supporters of government rights over private rights who desire to ban smoking in every single place on Earth.
I see no problem with a business, be it a restaurant or bar, allowing smoking, or not allowing smoking. If a business owner wants to allow smoking, it is his decision. If he doesn’t want smoking, that is also his decision.
On the same token it is my decision as a customer to decide where they want to shop and eat. But it is doubly true for owners and members of private clubs. These are only open to members and cater to certain groups. VFW’s, American Legions, gun clubs, and other social clubs all fit the bill.
But there are certain people who won’t stop at banning smoking in publc places.
From the the Boston Herald
Bill LaRaia, a retired Quincy EMT, said he’s paid dues to a private club for 25 years. “For you to tell me I can’t go in there and have a cigarette – that’s a disgrace.”
The issue pits private clubs against some restaurant and pub operators, who support the smoking ban expansion. Operators said they stand to lose business to private clubs.
“`We feel if you’re not going to allow people to smoke in a public place, why should they be allowed to go smoke in a private club?” said Bill Damon, with Darcy’s Pub.
A state law went into effect this week banning smoking in public places, including offices, restaurants and bars, though not in members-only clubs or cigar bars. Under Scheele’s local proposal, smoking would also be banned at private clubs in Quincy as of July 18. He has the authority to enact such health-related regulations under state law, said Monica Conyngham, the city solicitor.
“I don’t think the state went far enough,” Scheele said in an interview before the hearing. “As long as we have scientific evidence that second-hand smoke does cause health problems we can impose it. (Private clubs) have employees, too, that should be protected.”
The anti-freedom patrol has a two part strategy to rid public places of smoking. First they ban smoking in public places like bars and restaurants. Then they pit the owners of those establishment against those of private clubs. Then it becomes a fairness issue.
That strategy shows the shallowness of their anti-choice crusade. When they go to ban smoking in establishments they say it will not effect the bottom line of the business. But if it isn’t hitting the bottom line, then why are the owners of the bars and restaurants who are effected so determined to make sure that policy effects people who run private clubs?
The policy makers and do-gooders in this world cite how dangerous smoke is, and want it banned, but they are sure happy to feed at the trough of tax revenue and settlement money taken from these tobacco companies. I say if it is so damned dangerous, don’t take any money from it!! Why would you want to benefit from such a dangerous and deadly product?
To me it is all a choice of freedom. There is the freedom of the owners of establishments who wish to allow smoking. If they want to allow their customers have a smoke after dinner or with a drink, that is their choice. As a customer I have the right to choose a place that doesn’t allow smoking when I don’t want to be around smoke, and allows it when I want to smoke my Cohiba myself.
Look at it like alcohol. If I don’t feel like a drink with my steak, I will go to Hoss’s near my house. If I want a beer or fine liquor, I will go to Greggory’s. It is my choice. No one is forcing either place to be drink free or not. The market decides, and both places prosper.
People cite health over smoker’s rights. I say that right now it’s smoke, soon, it will be drink. If I go to a bar and drink a few drinks I am more dangerous to people’s health (by driving home) than I would be by smoking a double corona. So by so actively banning smoking, it stats the slipperly slope of total prohabition of almost any behavior some do-gooder deems dangerous.
Much to the surprise of many liberal, pro-government types out there the government can’t regulate all danger out of our lives. With freedom comes a little bit of risk. As a mature adult, I have the ability to choose for myself what I want to do with my life. That includes choosing to indulge in a legal, taxed product or even an illegal untaxed product. (but that is another post)
If I owned a bar or restaurant, I should be able to choose what type of establishment I want to have. Then the free market will decide. If I could make more money by not allowing smoking, then smoke free it is. But the market should decide about this legal product.
For more libertarian oriented reading, visit The Nap Room.Powered by Sidelines