Smoking Bans and the Nanny State
It didn't take long for those crusading for bans on public smoking to seize on the surgeon general's statement that there is no "safe" level of second-hand smoke as a rationale for such bans in the name of health concerns.
But to what extreme do you take the notion of "no safe level"?
Isn't it a lot like saying there's no such thing as a safe bacon double-cheeseburger? Could it be said that there is no such thing as a "safe" level of plaque in our arteries from eating fatty foods, and therefore fatty foods should be banned, or taxed (or their manufacturers sued)?
Given that far more Americans die from heart-related illness every year than from lung cancer, why pick on smoking? Because it annoys some people, that's why. I don't care for it either, but I tolerate it, much as you would tolerate being exposed to fat guys in bathing suits at the beach. (There ought to be a law!)
A recent Rasmussen poll found that 62 percent of adults think that there should be a nationwide ban on smoking in all public places. At the same time, however, only 18 percent supported a tax on soft drinks. So much for health concerns.
Those crying out for smoking bans would do well to consider how government control and influence grows. In a word: incrementally — and usually irreversibly. First this under the pretext of that, then this is later used as a precedent to expand influence into another area altogether.
In other words, those who favor a smoking ban but not a tax on their soft drinks are fooling themselves if they think their guilty pleasure isn't the next ox to be gored. You can hear the logic now: High-calorie drinks = fat people = health problems = increased medical costs ... so raise the taxes! And how much more so if we get that wonderful government-run health care liberals want?
If we ban smoking in public places, does anyone really think that banning smoking in cars with passengers, or homes with other occupants, will be far behind? How about a ban on taking your kids to McDonald's too often?
If the people pushing smoking bans really had any intellectual consistency, they would push for outright illegalization of all tobacco products. But they won't because a) the government wants the taxes that come from tobacco and b) they know they can't get enough people to move that far too quickly. But make no mistake: This is exactly what's on the minds of many of the proponents of such bans.
An inch today. A few more tomorrow.
What happened to taking it upon yourself to effect social change rather than looking for government mandates? What happened to personal responsibility?
Why not approach the management of your favorite establishments and let them know you can no longer patronize them if they allow smoking? If you're an employee, why not seek jobs only where you won't be exposed to smoke if it bothers you? And vice versa for those who want to smoke. Soon the social marketplace will sort itself out.
The mere fact that many businesses and restaurants already have non-smoking policies is evidence of that fact.
But too many people want to take shortcuts, and as a result, we're living in a nanny state.
Don't allow the bullies to lull you into complacence on this issue just because they're going after something that you may dislike anyway. Don't stand idly by while one group of people is being pushed around. You may be next.
We've got a nation of whiners who have decided they don't want to let the power of the free market sort out things that annoy them personally, so they look to government. But beware giving that power to government, especially on so thin a pretext, because it will soon extend to some area of your life that annoys someone else.
Then you'll be wondering what happened to common sense. And your freedom.
(originally ran in The State)
From the Blog |
