tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8725034278212958121.post855730967179562637..comments2023-05-06T00:52:53.936-07:00Comments on Smoking Lobby Forum for Smoker's Rights: Wisconsin Statewide Smoking Ban Snuffed Out in LegislatureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8725034278212958121.post-21086803935783390982008-03-13T20:27:00.000-07:002008-03-13T20:27:00.000-07:00Smoking bans are the real threatThe bandwagon of l...Smoking bans are the real threat<BR/><BR/>The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -<BR/>from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed<BR/>threat of "second-hand" smoke.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a<BR/>cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized<BR/>throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local<BR/>government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of<BR/>unlimited government power.<BR/><BR/>The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom<BR/>menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal<BR/>indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper<BR/>reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating<BR/>people about the potential danger and allowing them to make<BR/>their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force<BR/>people to make the "right" decision?<BR/><BR/>Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than<BR/>attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the<BR/>tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.<BR/><BR/>Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have<BR/>actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and<BR/>offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose<BR/>customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local<BR/>bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously<BR/>negligible, such as outdoor public parks.<BR/><BR/>The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be<BR/>answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment<BR/>of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding<BR/>every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend<BR/>or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married<BR/>or divorced, and so on.<BR/><BR/>All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful<BR/>consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the<BR/>neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must<BR/>be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only<BR/>his<BR/>own judgment can guide him through it.<BR/><BR/>Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette<BR/>smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and<BR/>unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the<BR/>power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.<BR/><BR/>That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of<BR/>inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your<BR/>favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm<BR/>at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited<BR/>intrusion of government into our lives.<BR/><BR/>We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.snowbirdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190467191176591296noreply@blogger.com