Ontario Smoking Ban: More Government Intrusion
The Liberals love to intrude. Tell you what's good for you, what's bad for you, etc. We now face more intrusion. In Ontario, a new law came into effect May 31, 2006 banning smoking in all public places and workplaces.
This law, pushed by anti-smoking activists, intrudes on personal choice. From a business perspective, many businesses that, up until recently (or perhaps May 31) allowed smoking, did so partly because this was part of their "target market". This smoking ban will negatively effect their business. One can argue that the drop in smoking customers at this business may be offset by the rise in non-smoking customers, but why must we intrude on the choice of the individual or the choice of the business owner?
Many believe that facilites that allowed smoking interfered with the freedom of non-smokers. But this is simply not the case.
If a smoker goes out to a bar and fills it with second-hand smoke, they are in no way interfering with a non-smoker's freedom to go where they want or when they want. They do make it inconvenient or unpleasant for a non-smoker to visit this bar, but that is not in any way the same as infringing on their rights - and besides, it shouldn't be up to either of them (or the government) in a privately owned establishment. With this law a smoker can no longer go to any bar and fill it up with smoke, but the non-smoker is still free to gow where they want, when they want.
We are not talking anymore about ensuring freedoms, we are only talking about ensuring convenience, but only for the side that is perceived as having the higher moral ground.
My final thought is this... let the market cater to non-smokers and smokers, whomever they prefer to target. Not add another level of government intrusion.
The Liberals love to intrude. Tell you what's good for you, what's bad for you, etc. We now face more intrusion. In Ontario, a new law came into effect May 31, 2006 banning smoking in all public places and workplaces.
This law, pushed by anti-smoking activists, intrudes on personal choice. From a business perspective, many businesses that, up until recently (or perhaps May 31) allowed smoking, did so partly because this was part of their "target market". This smoking ban will negatively effect their business. One can argue that the drop in smoking customers at this business may be offset by the rise in non-smoking customers, but why must we intrude on the choice of the individual or the choice of the business owner?
Many believe that facilites that allowed smoking interfered with the freedom of non-smokers. But this is simply not the case.
If a smoker goes out to a bar and fills it with second-hand smoke, they are in no way interfering with a non-smoker's freedom to go where they want or when they want. They do make it inconvenient or unpleasant for a non-smoker to visit this bar, but that is not in any way the same as infringing on their rights - and besides, it shouldn't be up to either of them (or the government) in a privately owned establishment. With this law a smoker can no longer go to any bar and fill it up with smoke, but the non-smoker is still free to gow where they want, when they want.
We are not talking anymore about ensuring freedoms, we are only talking about ensuring convenience, but only for the side that is perceived as having the higher moral ground.
My final thought is this... let the market cater to non-smokers and smokers, whomever they prefer to target. Not add another level of government intrusion.
posted by TB at 10:45 PM
9 Comments:
Your fourth paragraph is exactly what I have been thinking about banning smoking in bars for a long time. It's a good thing that in Alberta, the City of Calgary isn't going "smoke free" until 2008. And even then bar owners are probably going to be able to get around it.
After all, it is a private business and the public has their right to go there or not go there. The fear is that non-smoking bars would go under, hense, limiting business. Which, in my opinion, is a bullshit answer.
I have no concern for the supposed property rights of owners, my concern is the abuse that we are heaping upon citizens who were addicted, depending on the time, with the tacit approval of both levels of government, to a drug that is 10 times more difficult to quit than Heroin. Where is the compassion for these addicts that we so readily display towards others?
My thought on smoking bans has always been, "where does it end?". We have already removed certain rights of individuals and business owners by enacting the current law in Ontario. Anti-smoking activists are now wanting action taken to restrict smoking in apartment buildings, because they claim that second hand smoke passes through ventilation systems into non-smoking units.
When will this protection of non-smokers end? Will it become illegal to smoke in your home if you have children someday? Can a person continue to smoke outside at work, or will this become illegal someday? Can a person continue to smoke in their unit in an apartment building, or will the government soon decide that we have to protect non-smokers in neighboring units?
Once the government begins removing certain rights or freedoms, there is no telling how far it could go. Anti-smoking activists won't be happy until smoking is illegal, and will continue to try to force their beliefs on the rest of society.
The major problem is that it is seen as legitmate to persecute smokers for their choices. However, if this were pro-life activists and the government were enacting a law to regulate abortion then we would be fighting it with all resources available. I see these actions as the same.
You guys are focusing on the patrons, and not the employees of the establishment. As soon as you hire staff, you cease to be a "privately owned" establishment free to do whatever you want; as an employer, you have a responsibility to ensure your workers are working in a safe environment.
Smoking in any workplace must be prohibited.
Foremans on construction sites are required to ensure workers are wearing safety equipment. Is that an infringment on their right to dress how they please?
Just as a smoker continues to smoke with full knowledge of the risks to his/her health, a non-smoker does not have to work in an establishment that allows smoking. If he/she continues to work in an establishment that allows smoking, that is his/her choice, and he/she does so with the knowledge of the potential danger to his/her health.
In my area, foremans are not concerned about ensuring that their workers are wearing safety equipment because there is little or no enforcement of this law in the area. These workers continue to wear the safety equipment because of the potential of injury. Just as the non-smoker does not have to work in an establishment that allows smoking, these workers voluntarily wear their safety equipment because of the potential dangers if they don't.
Just as a smoker continues to smoke with full knowledge of the risks to his/her health, a non-smoker does not have to work in an establishment that allows smoking.
TB, you're more right wing than me. Even I don't believe in that. :)
Not everyone chooses the job they're in. Some people have to find work where they can get it - the risk to their health is secondary. If that means tending bar, working in a mine, being a custodian in a bingo hall, or parking cars at a casino, these people don't need second hand smoke.
Once they're in these jobs making just over minimum wage, they have responsibilities and commitments that take precedence over exposure to smoke - rent, food, whatever. These people can't just walk away.
I understand the fact that sometimes responsibility takes precedence over potential dangers to one's health in employment situations. I have worked my fair share of jobs that were of potential danger to my health in order to make ends meet.
This ban will become a slippery slope. Anti-smoking lobbyists will continue to lobby the government for more regulations and harsher punishments. When do we call it quits? Why do we continue to persecute smokers as second-rate citizens? And why is it acceptable to tell a smoker that he should quit smoking because it poses a danger to his health but not acceptable to tell an obese person that they should quit eating KFC because it poses a danger to his health?
On another note, the health risks of second hand smoke are questionable. I have not read this in great detail, but thought I would make the link available. Without scientific evidence, there is no need to protect non-smokers.
http://66.11.161.138/docs/pdf/srcpamphletwithinstructions.pdf
I would also mention that more carcinogens come from a mile a day motorist than come from a pack a day smoker. The only difference is the damage done to the individual who smokes.
Post a Comment
<< Home