PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
by Chris Freind
"There's been a tremendous amount of debate on the issue, but smoke free legislation can save lives." So stated Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter after the state senate passed a statewide smoking ban, which Governor Rendell signed last week. He and the mindless supporters of such a ban should be happy, since the Keystone State is one step closer to becoming the People's Republic of Pennsylvania.
Of course, based on the Mayor's "logic", we should not stop with smoking. We should ban cars, too. After all, the emissions from gas combustion engines are far worse than second hand smoke, exacerbating the greenhouse effect so much that we should expect a melting of the polar icecaps any day now. Philadelphia will soon be beachfront property. An even more exciting benefit to banning cars is that, since people won't get in accidents, lives will be "saved" by such legislation. What a no-brainer!
It is truly admirable that the proponents of the smoking ban want to save lives because, obviously, nothing can trump that, right? Well, except money. Casinos in the state will be permitted to allow smoking in up to 50% of their gaming halls. Hotels will offer smoking in 25% of their rooms. Also exempt are numerous bars and taverns, nursing homes, adult care facilities, and drug and alcohol treatment centers.
Talk about the height of hypocrisy. If the smoking ban is designed to save lives, then why the exceptions? Are non-smokers in nursing homes less important than those who work in hospitals? Do people inside a bus station really count more than those pulling a slot machine lever?
The answer isn't to selectively ban smoking, but the complete opposite. We should either let the free market dictate what places should be smoke-free, or the government should outlaw smoking and the possession of tobacco outright. The gray area in which we find ourselves only serves to undermine our freedoms and further ingrain the paternalistic mentality that government knows best.
History shows that once the door is even slightly ajar, the onslaught to erode personal freedoms never stops. We have seen governments ban foods, guns, and even some forms of speech. Why do we think this situation will be any different? What's most distressing is that we are willingly giving up our freedoms in order to satisfy personal desires. "I don't want to go to a restaurant and smell like smoke". "Who needs scary looking guns that can shoot more than five bullets?" "Nobody should ever want to eat duck liver."
These are personal preferences, and they should stay personal. No law should ever be on the books that caters to a person's whim that a privately owned restaurant should not be allowed to offer a completely legal activity. The answer is simple: if you don't like second-hand smoke, then go to a smoke-free eatery. Period. When we impose unnecessary restrictions on our fellow private citizens, we all lose. That goes for non-smokers, too, because they are inevitably affected when something they enjoy gets banned. In this case, however, they cannot see the forest despite of the trees.
Common sense tells us that the most detrimental second-hand smoke occurs inside private homes, which, by the way, are exempt from the ban. So we are enacting more restrictive laws to deal with a "problem" that cannot and will not be solved short of banning smoking outright. Never let the truth get in the way of a good crusade.
When Big Macs start getting banned, the calorie content of lattes become regulated, and lobsters on the dinner plate go the way of the dodo bird, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Smoke 'em if ya' got 'em.
