Smoking ban is all smoke and mirrors
I was extremely disappointed to read the opinions in today's opinion page of the Kansas City Star regarding the proposed smoking bans in restraunts and bars. 10 people were asked whether or not they supported the ban, and, all 10 said yes. Some had a few caveats, but the decision was unanimous nonetheless. Numerous reasons were given, but the one that is perhaps the most troubling is the (paraphrased), "I don't smoke, so it should be banned", or "I just quit, and I don't want the temptation to start again, so yes it should be banned".
Of all 10 opinions, not one seemed to recognize two key facts: 1) smoking is legal, and 2) bars and restraunts are private property. Nothing more needs to be said. If we as citizens fall into the trap of asking the government to outlaw things that we personally don't agree with, which take place on or in private property, where do we draw the line? Frankly, I don't like hip-hop music. Two of my favorite bars in town used to blast hip-hop several nights per week. Not once did I consider asking the government to ban hip-hop music simply because I wanted to go to one of these establishments and not be bothered by music I don't like. Instead, I didn't go on those nights, and voted with my wallet. And guess what? Neither of them is playing hip-hop any longer! (That could be a testimonial of how much I drink I suppose???? LOL)
Granted there is a difference between hip-hop and tobacco smoke. It is a widely accepted fact that tobacco smoke, even 2nd hand, causes health problems. There, I said it. Everyone knows it. But the fact remains that smoking tobacco is legal, and the hypocritical lawyers and politicians are making a fortune from it, while at the same time demonizing it. If it's so bad, why not just outlaw it? The reason is simple, the almighty dollar.
The bottom line is not whether or not you smoke. It's not even whether or not you want to smell smoke in a bar or restraunt. The bottom line is this: at what point do we outlaw legal, peaceful activities in and on private property that nobody is forced to participate in? And, as a follow up question, where does it end?
Of all 10 opinions, not one seemed to recognize two key facts: 1) smoking is legal, and 2) bars and restraunts are private property. Nothing more needs to be said. If we as citizens fall into the trap of asking the government to outlaw things that we personally don't agree with, which take place on or in private property, where do we draw the line? Frankly, I don't like hip-hop music. Two of my favorite bars in town used to blast hip-hop several nights per week. Not once did I consider asking the government to ban hip-hop music simply because I wanted to go to one of these establishments and not be bothered by music I don't like. Instead, I didn't go on those nights, and voted with my wallet. And guess what? Neither of them is playing hip-hop any longer! (That could be a testimonial of how much I drink I suppose???? LOL)
Granted there is a difference between hip-hop and tobacco smoke. It is a widely accepted fact that tobacco smoke, even 2nd hand, causes health problems. There, I said it. Everyone knows it. But the fact remains that smoking tobacco is legal, and the hypocritical lawyers and politicians are making a fortune from it, while at the same time demonizing it. If it's so bad, why not just outlaw it? The reason is simple, the almighty dollar.
The bottom line is not whether or not you smoke. It's not even whether or not you want to smell smoke in a bar or restraunt. The bottom line is this: at what point do we outlaw legal, peaceful activities in and on private property that nobody is forced to participate in? And, as a follow up question, where does it end?
posted by Jason E. Peck at 6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home