City Smoking Ban

Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality Letters to the Editor
1

[Note to OO.net: The bracketed remarks in the third paragraph were in my original letter, but they left them out of the version they printed.]

______________

On January 1, Lincoln began enforcement of its recently passed smoking ban. The ban prohibits indoor smoking in most public places, subject to a few trivial exceptions. Proponents hail it as a victory for health. They are wrong. It is a victory only for tyranny.

In a proper, objective society, government plays a crucial role. It permits only voluntary interaction and self-defense. It forbids the initiation of force. By recognizing personal and property rights, a proper government defends the free person against those who would enslave him.

The Lincoln Smoking Regulation Act is nonobjective law that goes well beyond government’s proper role. It casts aside voluntary interaction in favor of coercion. [it is immoral and deceptive. For instance, the Act purports to “encourage” businesses to reduce the supposed health effects of smoking. This flagrantly distorts the truth. A law is not encouragement; it is force. If the Act’s proponents truly want to encourage, a law is unnecessary and ineffective. They should have the guts to admit that they do not seek to encourage, but to commandeer.]

Of all the Act’s failures, the most glaring moral one is its definition of “public place.” The Act prohibits smoking in any public place. It defines public place as “an indoor area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, whether or not the public is always invited or permitted.” Apparently, the Act’s proponents think that an invitation equals a license to jam their personal preferences down a property owner’s throat. They are wrong.

Phrasing the issue, as many have, as a “right to smoke versus a right to clean air,” or “smoker’s rights versus nonsmoker’s rights,” or “rights versus health,” is incorrect at best. At worst, it is deceptive and evil. If the issue is one of rights versus health, why not ban smoking entirely, even in private homes? If “public health” trumps rights, the only stopping points are whichever ones happen to be politically expedient.

The issue is one of property rights, and property rights alone, and you are either for them or you are not. There is no middle ground on this issue. Anyone saying otherwise is either intellectually challenged or lying. Oh, and as of January 1, backed by a gun.

2

[Note to OO.net: The bracketed remarks in the third paragraph were in my original letter, but they left them out of the version they printed.]

The issue is one of property rights, and property rights alone, and you are either for them or you are not. There is no middle ground on this issue. Anyone saying otherwise is either intellectually challenged or lying. Oh, and as of January 1, backed by a gun.

Is this conclusion based on the perception that the health-damaging effects of second-hand smoke have not been substantially demonstrated, or is that question irrelevant in the face of property rights in general? If, for the sake of argument, smoking presented a significant health danger to those immediately around the smoker, wouldn’t that call for a restriction of his ability to exercise his right to smoke, in the same way that someone may be allowed to fire a rifle at the gun range, but can’t take target practice to the neighborhood coffee shop?

3

If, for the sake of argument, smoking presented a significant health danger to those immediately around the smoker . . .

I will not assume that for the sake of argument because it is borderline arbitrary. Your rifle illustration is not comparable. It is scientifically proven that a rifle causes damage instantly. It is far from proven that ingesting cigarette smoke once causes anything but minor irritation.

The point is also based on assumption of that inconvenience. If you know there’s smoking in a bar and you go in anyway, that’s your fault. I happen to not like obnoxiously loud music. But I know that bars often play music at higher levels, which are sometimes so high as to be uncomfortable. If I don’t like the sound level, I don’t go. And repeated exposure to excessive sound can certainly cause hearing damage.

4

It is far from proven that ingesting cigarette smoke once causes anything but minor irritation.

Plus, it’s hard to chew. <grin>

I live in Ohio. Ohio has had for quite some time this lovely little group called stand , which is basically a bunch of kids running an anti-smoking campaign. They just pulled a major countdown-style ad-blitz launching their new site Debunkify, where they spout such gems as “Secondhand smoke is deadly. Every ten minutes it kills a non-smoker.” For support of this assertion, they cite a public comment on a 1997 California EPA paper, arriving at the number of 53,000 deaths by taking half of all annual heart disease, lung cancer and SIDS deaths. This is just one example of the incredible spin they spew as truth.

They are affiliated with the national organization truth , which run ads (which can be viewed here) complaining about, among other things, how some tobacco executive in the 70s suggested banning sleep since most people die in their sleep. Hey, sounds like a pretty cogent satirical argument to me!

I voted against the Columbus municipal smoking ban two Novembers ago. The bar around the corner, which I frequented because it was a friendly place, publicly and repeatedly refused to comply with the law when it passed, allowing patrons to smoke all they wanted. The ban punished proprieters, not smokers. I hate smoke, but I still went there until they were shut down. Last I heard they reopened because everyone got upset. They might have ended up getting some sort of papal dispensation. How stupid smoking bans are.

-Q

5

I will not assume that for the sake of argument because it is borderline arbitrary. Your rifle illustration is not comparable. It is scientifically proven that a rifle causes damage instantly. It is far from proven that ingesting cigarette smoke once causes anything but minor irritation.

The point is also based on assumption of that inconvenience. If you know there’s smoking in a bar and you go in anyway, that’s your fault. I happen to not like obnoxiously loud music. But I know that bars often play music at higher levels, which are sometimes so high as to be uncomfortable. If I don’t like the sound level, I don’t go. And repeated exposure to excessive sound can certainly cause hearing damage.

So then the answer to my first question is yes? That is, that part of the reason smoking bans are immoral is the lack of definitive scientific data regarding the dangers of second hand smoke?

I’m not sure I understand the second part of your post. If I go to a bar that I know has frequent brawls, and in the course of the evening I’m beat up by some thug without my instigating anything, does my foreknowledge make his act acceptable? It might make me stupid for going to the bar in the first place, but the assault is still a crime. now, you might be right in saying that the certainty of damage inthe two scenarios is not the same, and I don’t say this to necessarily assert than smoking should be banned. But, it seems like the only reason for not banning it would be a lack of data regarding its danger, and given sufficient evidence, it’s no different than the brawl or the rifle example I gave earlier.

6

But, it seems like the only reason for not banning it would be a lack of data regarding its danger, and given sufficient evidence, it’s no different than the brawl or the rifle example I gave earlier.

You would be right that given sufficient evidence, it is no different. The problem with that is that it is true of anything. Given sufficient evidence, for example, a speck of dust on the floor of a restaurant in Japan contaminates your food at your neighborhood Wendy’s. The reason, therefore, that it is different from brawls and rifles is the lack of evidence. You can not escape the arbitrary by saying, “given sufficient evidence.” Then “arbitrary” ceases to exist, and anything, no matter how absurd, requires consideration.

Furthermore, note that the brawls, like the rifles, cause damage instantly. I am aware of no evidence whatsoever that smoke causes anything but irritation at most without repeated, frequent exposure.

Then there’s also the consent issue. Do you think people ought be permitted to consent to any risks? If so, which ones? If a bar allows smoking, and I decide that the risk to my health is minimal and does not justify spending my time somewhere else (perhaps they have the best prices, or exceptional service), do you permit me to make that decision?

7

If, for the sake of argument, smoking presented a significant health danger to those immediately around the smoker, wouldn’t that call for a restriction of his ability to exercise his right to smoke, in the same way that someone may be allowed to fire a rifle at the gun range, but can’t take target practice to the neighborhood coffee shop?

No, it wouldn’t call for a restriction. Boxing is clearly an activity that will cause harm and even sometimes death. But so long as both people in the ring consent to be boxers, they are free to do so. Nobody forces the boxers to step into the ring and risk harm from boxing. Just as nobody forces people to go into smoky bars and accept that.

But if a boxer came up to you on the street and punched you, then that would be a crime. It would be the same if we lived in an alternate universe where secondhand smoke was in fact a health danger. But, as I have illustrated, when you have consenting parties on private property, there is no legal justification for a ban.

8

But, as I have illustrated, when you have consenting parties on private property, there is no legal justification for a ban.

I see. Would the situation change on government property?

9

I think it would. I doubt a total ban is in order, but I would not have a problem with reasonable restrictions aimed at eliminating smoking’s disruption of official business. Plus, often with government property, people are not on there by choice. Example: jury duty. That eliminates any consent and thus it would be improper to subject people to smoke against their wills.

10

I think it would. I doubt a total ban is in order, but I would not have a problem with reasonable restrictions aimed at eliminating smoking’s disruption of official business.

Agreed. They could smoke out back or something.

But remember, secondhand smoke has not been proven to be a health risk. I’ve been working on an article on the subject and found out that the “study” which “proved” it was not exactly accurate.

11

But remember, secondhand smoke has not been proven to be a health risk. I’ve been working on an article on the subject and found out that the “study” which “proved” it was not exactly accurate.

Very interesting. I have to admit, my kneejerk reaction was to assume that since the negative effects of smoking on smokers seems so well-documented, the danger of second-hand smoke would be equally so. Glad to be better informed.

12

But remember, secondhand smoke has not been proven to be a health risk.

We agree, Inspector. I would like to add a point for clarity. The reason I think it is proper to restrict smoking on government property has to do with it being annoying (and thus disruptive to government business), not unhealthy. I imagine a case being argued before some Justices and some people in the crowd lighting up. Doesn’t make much sense to me. Same goes for any other noxious odors, loud noises, etc. Basically anything that could reasonably be described as offending the senses. I smoke, but I would not want somebody smoking while I was endeavoring to try a case before a jury.