The typical argument against smoking bans is that the market is capable of deciding where smoking should or should not be allowed more easily and smoothly than any bureaucrat. Such is the current debate in the Michigan Legislature, where several competing bills call for everything from a complete workplace ban to a nearly complete workplace ban with exceptions carved out for Detroit casinos and tobacco shops, regardless of the preferences of private business owners and those who choose to patronize them.
(more ...)
2 comments:
I agree that this is the ultimate question, however just as you wouldn't expect a victim of battery to be in the way of flying fists, second-hand smoke carries a little more weight than, say, loud music keeping the neighbors awake. Second hand smoke causes cancer, just like flying fists cause bruises. This is where A (smokers) should be prevented from causing cancer in B (non-smokers). The harm done to A (not allowing them to smoke) is merely an inconvenience, whereas the harm done to B can be life threatening. Sure, they're not forced to be in a smokey bar, which is really the only argument, but we have to decide if B's right to be in the bar is more important than A's right to smoke there.
Lindsey's point would be on-point if one thing were true: Individuals were required to go to restaurants that allow smoking (or to Heywood Banks shows).
Until a law is passed that essentially holds a gun to your head and says, "Eat here!" there is no moral justification to infringe on the right of restaurant owners to choose whether they will allow or ban smoking on their own property. Stripping that right is simply an exercise in the (politically) strong imposing their will on the weak - tyranny of the majority.
Post a Comment