The other day I took the Post-Gazette to task for supporting the ridiculous ban on smoking in all bars and restaurants, regardless if that's what the owner, workers or patrons want.
One of the primary elements of my position amounts to a "slippery slope" argument: If it's smoking today, what will they ban tomorrow? Twinkies?
And that is the element of the argument that is most open to criticism. "Paranoid jackass," people say. "No one wants your stupid Twinkie."
Undeterred, I have also made the argument that if the public health goon squad really wants to improve public health like they claim, smoking isn't the only dangerous thing going on in bars.
"Paranoid jackass, no one cares how much you drink. You just want to smoke and you don't care how your nasty habit impacts innocent bartenders. Chump!"
Well, first of all, I don't smoke.
And second of all... told you so.
So there.
Maybe this doesn't seem important to you. But a lot of people think this line of reasoning makes a lot of sense. I refer you again to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's support of the smoking ban.
I like the Post-Gazette. I think they do a lot of excellent reporting. Toland and Belko, for instance, have been doing hard-core work on the casino mess. But their editorial bord too often flirts with shallow pop-culture speechifying that borders on the smug. Yes, we know smoking is bad for you. So is drinking and casual sex and a host of other things.
But I took civics class. And as far as I recall it's not the government's job to make sure no one does anything that's bad for them. And it doesn't make it any better when the reason they come kicking down your door is for clean air or safe streets.
Paranoid? Check the link. And ask yourself: Say I own a bar and refuse to do the state's job. That is, I refuse to enforce the smoking ban. And let's say officials catch wind of this and send someone to do something about it. And let's say I know they are coming and lock my door.
Think they'll kick it down?
All because a few people think smoking is nasty and refuse to go somewhere--one of the growing number of places---where it's not allowed.
Public health. Talk about a slippery slope...
public health...a slippery slope. just like universal health care...i say live and let die.
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | March 22, 2006 at 02:24 PM
I've bent on smoking over the past few years. I was holding out for the free market to take care of this instead of the government, but those smoke-free bars never gained momentum.
Exposure to 2nd hand smoke over a LONG period is fairly conclusively proven a hazard, so employees should either be protected from it or given hazard pay or something. But not customers - they don't breath enough of the stuff for it to matter. I'll note I'm a former smoker.
I heard a couple of young mothers yesterday talking about how they'd like to adopt laws making it illegal to smoke in your car or house if you have kids. I couldn't insert myself in that argument for fear my head would explode.
Now, the motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws - especially this new proposed revenue-producing gambit allowing arrests for seatbelt violations w/o other cause... that's unadulterated Nannyness. Who's being protected from what?
Then again, so it the entire hierarchy of the LCB. Won't some politico take that operation on? Nannyness AND corruption... perfect bedfellows.
Posted by: RichW | March 30, 2006 at 07:19 PM