Smoking Bans: Good Government or Suppression of Freedom?
If you're a smoker in the Metroplex, you may be feeling a little picked on and perhaps, confused. On the one hand, you're being chased away from restaurants, bars, and other public places because of your disgusting evil habit, and on the other, the tax from that cigarette you're smoking is providing much needed health insurance for needy children. What kind of message is that? Please keep smoking yourself into an iron lung for the children, but don't you dare do it around anyone else! Does that sound like good government?
As I see these smoking bans being implemented across the Metroplex, I can't help but believe that we're over reacting, and in doing so, we are placing the rights of one group over the rights of another - instead of trying to find a way to accommodate the freedoms of everyone involved. Do we really only have two options in this case, either ban smoking all together, or allow smoking everywhere? Isn't there a way to ensure that non-smokers can enjoy a meal without having to inhale second hand smoke, that smokers can enjoy a cigarette while consuming a meal, and business owners can cater to one group or the other depending upon their business model? There is a truly simple solution to this problem but will any of our legislators be able to see past the emotion of the issue long enough to consider it?
Before I provide this common sense solution that will protect the rights of smokers, non-smokers, and businesses alike, I want to dispel some of the other arguments that I hear bandied about anytime the smoking debate comes up. The first question that arises is whether or not second hand smoke is bad for your health. My answer is that it simply doesn't matter if second hand smoke is bad for your health because most non-smokers simply don't want to be around the smoke or to smell like a cigarette after dinner. We should find a way to support that desire. The second question is whether or not businesses are adversely affected by smoking bans. This answer is a little more complicated because it depends upon the scope of the ban. If one small city in the Metroplex implements a smoking ban while the others refrain, this localized ban will adversely affect its businesses because smokers will only have to drive a few short miles to the next city that allows smoking. So if a ban is to be done in such a way as to protect businesses, it must be done on a regional or state level. But again, is an outright ban the only solution?
In my opinion, good government is about trying to protect the rights of all, as opposed to suppressing the rights of one group in order to please the other. The way to achieve this protection, when it comes to smoking, is through licensing and regulation versus bans and punishments. In other words, the smoking issue should be dealt with much like current alcohol regulation. If a business wants to sell alcohol to its consumers it is required by the city to acquire a license. Cities in turn, limit the number of locations which can sell alcohol and they regulate the businesses who offer these products to ensure safety for all. In this way, the rights of those who wish to consume alcohol are protected, but those of us who choose not to consume alcohol are not overrun by the potential effects of offering alcohol on every street corner. This is the same model that should be employed where smoking is concerned.
Instead of banning smoking in all restaurants and bars, cities should offer a limited number of licenses for smoking establishments. These licenses would include requirements for signage, ventilation, etc., so that no unsuspecting consumer could enter without knowing that this is a smoking establishment. In this way, those who wish to smoke while enjoying a meal would be free to do so, those who smoke and would like a job where they are free to smoke would have a choice to do so, those business owners who wish to cater to smokers would be able to get a license, and finally, those who do not want to be around cigarette smoke in any way, shape, or form, would have access to the majority of establishments in the area without having to worry about driving around to find a non smoking establishment or having to put up with non smoking areas that are far from smoke free. This simple change in approach would protect the freedoms for all parties - which should always be our approach in government.
I do feel the need to make it clear that I do not smoke, nor do I recommend that anyone purposely take years off of their life through this practice. But it is a legal substance, and as such, we should not be so quick to ban its legal use in all places. An important rule of thumb is that you must protect the rights of those with whom we disagree in order to protect our own rights. Otherwise, in the future, the finger of shame and scrutiny maybe pointed at a practice you hold dear. We must also remember that an important feature of our representative government is the need to protect the rights of the minority over the demands of the majority. Is it really too difficult to try and seek a solution that satisfies both sides? I sincerely hope not.
Jay Mcfarland can be heard on Ernie and Jay Mid-days, Monday - Friday from 10:00AM - 2:00PM on NewsRadio 1080 KRLD. Email comments to ernieandjay@cbs.com or visit krld.com.
David Johnson CEO Spotlight - 3/17/10
Knight Kiplinger,editor in chief, "Kiplinger's Personal Finance" magazine, Kiplinger.com and the "Kiplinger Letter" talks about dissatisfaction with Congress, the Healthcare Bill and the economy.
E-Mail Story
Print Story
