Post details: Smoking ban debate is inherently flawed

08/21/07

Permalink 03:26:12 am, by Rossputin Email , 249 words, 121 views   English (US)
Categories: Political Opinion, Letters to the Editor, Published!, Colorado Issues •• Email Story ••

Smoking ban debate is inherently flawed

PUBLISHED in the Denver Post, 8/21/07
http://www.denverpost.com/letters/ci_6681024

re "Ruling should clear up conflicts on smoking ban" (Denver Post editorial, 8/19/07)
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6665532

The fundamental problem around the smoking ban debate is demonstrated unwittingly in your editorial on the subject. You say that the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act bans smoking “in most indoor public places”. But a restaurant, bar, or casino is no more a “public” place than is my office or even my home. They are private properties, the owners of which should have the right to permit or prohibit any legal activity as they decide best suits their business strategy, their personal moral code, or any other basis upon which they make such decisions.

Secondly, you mention “involuntary exposure” to secondhand smoke, by which I presume you mean someone who goes to a restaurant or bar and breathes in smoke from another patron’s cigarette. But such exposure pushes the limits of the word “involuntary” since nobody has forced the person into the restaurant or bar at gunpoint, and certainly nobody is keeping him there once he learns that there may be smoke present.

As someone who despises smoking, I am pleased with the effect of the smoking ban, but I oppose it nonetheless. Private property rights are more important than the wishes of a bunch of do-gooders, even if they are a majority. What’s next, government banning trans-fats? Naah, Big Nanny would never go that far, would they?

Comments:

Comment from: Commenter [Visitor]
Involuntary Exposure usually refers to employees.

Since the days of sweatshop fires, legislation involving work safety issues has been considered fairly mainstream.
PermalinkPermalink 08/23/07 @ 12:05
Comment from: Rossputin [Member] Email · http://www.rossputin.com
Nobody is forcing anybody to work anywhere. It's the property owner's right to make decisions about what legal actions are permissible on/in his property.
PermalinkPermalink 08/23/07 @ 12:09

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

Current events, politics, economics, Social Security reform, School Choice, financial markets, philosophy and more, with an emphasis on free minds, free markets, and free people.

May 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<< <     
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Click on the image to Subscribe to Imprimis It's free and it's excellent.
Subscribe to Imprimis (Free!)

Search

Linkblog

Political & Legal Action Organizations

News and Analysis

Blogs & Commentary

Think Tanks

Economics & Finance

Social Security Reform

Foreign Policy & Int'l Affairs

Terrorism, Iraq, etc.

Blogs about Blogs and the Media

Colorado Issues and Bloggers

At Your Own Risk!

Philosophy, Objectivism, etc.

Climate Change & Environment

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 11

powered by
b2evolution

Valid RSS! Valid Atom!
Listed on BlogShares