Up In Smoke
By Tony DiPasquale (07/31/03)
For years, New York residents have been disillusioned as to what freedom is truly about. Administration after administration told us, albeit indirectly, that higher taxes resulted in more freedom.
This of course was accomplished through their never-ending and continuously growing welfare state, which they said would create a safety net. Low and behold, the only accomplishment this gave New York was an unstoppable mass exodus of businesses and jobs. Today, knowing that taxpayers will no longer tolerate significant increases in their taxes, our "leaders" have devised a new way to spell freedom, R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. The newest form of regulation enacted in the Empire State, you guessed it, a ban on smoking in public buildings.
As of July 23, it became illegal to light up any tobacco product in a public building in New York State. The claim here is that second-hand smoke poses a danger to other patrons as well as employees.
Whether or not second-hand smoke is unhealthy should not be the issue here. As a customer, it is my prerogative to avoid any establishment that allows smoking and instead take my business elsewhere. Likewise, no employee has a gun to their head forcing them to accept a job at a company that permits smoking in the workplace.
The issue should not be whether or not a smoking ban should be set in place, but rather does the government have the right to legislate such a law. If the government decides to have a policy of no smoking in any government building, this should be acceptable to all, but when the government instills the same restrictions on property owners, the electorate should cry foul. Unfortunately, many today believe that freedom is important when it applies to their own concerns, yet are not suspicious of trusting their neighbors with it.
Are we not supposed to be living in a nation that allows for the private ownership of property? If this is the case, then where does the government derive the authority to dictate what legal activities can take place there?
I know. I can hear people yelling now insisting that we need these codes to ensure the safety of the public. Perhaps this is true for certain matters such as the safe construction of a building, or the maintaining of clear exits, but second-hand smoke inside a building does not pose any immediate threat to anyone's well-being. As for its long-term effects, there is still much left for debate.
It should also be noted that New York State felt that it was so imperative that they protect the lives of its residents from the dangers of second-hand smoke that they gave Eastman Kodak a three-year exemption from this law at one of their buildings. And I thought we were all equal under the law. Apparently, as in George Orwell's Animal Farm, it seems that some of us are just more equal than others.
An ironic twist to this absurd assault on tobacco and property owners has taken place in Smyrna, Delaware. It seems bar owner Frank Infante has been fined three times because of customers lighting up in his establishment, a situation he encourages, yet each time he has had the case dismissed. You see, Infante has used a little known secret to legally avoid having to pay these fines. The Delaware law, as with many others, only outlaws the smoking of tobacco in a public place. Since the state agents never collected any evidence as to what the customers at Bull Dozers, Infante's bar, were smoking, they could not prove whether the "cigarettes" in question were tobacco or an herbal variety, which is legal under the law. You have to admit this makes for a nice ending to a ridiculous scenario.
Certainly I have no desire to encourage anyone to smoke, especially when I myself find it to be a disgusting habit. Still, in a free country should we allow the government to dictate what we can do to our bodies, or do on our property? I hope the answer most will give is no.
Regardless, we have allowed the government to become paternal in order to protect us from ourselves, a situation we should be ashamed of. Today, we have all sorts of laws to do just this, ranging from seatbelt laws, to helmet laws, and soon it appears the fast food industry will fall victim to the state's voracious appetite for control.
In a free society, citizens should have the freedom to make stupid choices, providing that they do not trample the rights of others. Smoking tobacco in a restaurant, bar, or any other setting should not be construed as an endangerment to others. Just a side note: does anyone else see the hypocrisy in outlawing smoking in a bar for health issues? I mean when did drinking become healthy?
None of us have to frequent, or take employment at, businesses that allow smoking. In fact, niches will be created to serve each type of consumer. Still, this is not a democracy, it is a republic, and as such we are supposed to be governed by laws, not the whims of the majority.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tony DiPasquale
