|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Netflix DVD Rentals. NO LATE FEES; 40,000+ titles. Try for FREE! May 15, 2005 Protecting the Adults By Jan A. Larson  The voters of
Austin, Texas, an island of blue in the sea of red that is the state of
Texas, approved a wide-ranging ordinance that banned smoking in almost
all public places including bars and live music venues.Ironically, the business that stand to lose the most, at least in the short run, in a city that is the self-proclaimed "live music capital of the world," are the above mentioned bars and music venues. It is also remarkably ironic that those on the left that profess tolerance and freedom of choice were the leading supporters of the no smoking ordinance. Of course we all know by now that there is no logic to the inconsistent positions of those on the left. I will state for the record that I am not a smoker and in the six plus years that I have lived in the Austin area, I have rarely gone into a bar, smoke-filled or not, and have never spent an evening in a smoke-filled music venue. The primary reason? I don't care to sit in smoke-filled rooms. Since a number of large cities, including New York, have banned smoking in bars in recent years, the fact that Austin followed suit is not really newsworthy. All of the talking points on both sides of the smoking issue have been widely discussed and I won't get into them here with one exception. The one point made by supporters of smoking bans that I do find particularly fallacious is the notion that smoking bans are necessary to protect patrons and employees. Just as I personally managed to avoid smoked-filled establishments, I do not believe anyone in Austin or anywhere else has even been forced to work in or visit such establishments. Any assertion to the contrary is disingenuous. I should be thrilled that many of the Austin-area clubs that I have heretofore avoided will no longer be on my "do not visit" list, but instead of being thrilled, I am troubled. I am troubled because, despite the rhetoric, I'm willing to wager that many that voted to ban smoking were not thinking of rescuing the hapless employees forced to endure a hazardous atmosphere while trying to make a dime. There are really only two reasons that someone would support a smoking ban, either selfishness or self-righteousness. The selfish simply want to enjoy the benefits of a smoke-free environment, but are not willing to invest their own money or take the risk to open a smoke-free bar. If there were a market for smoke-free bars and music venues, certainly the laws of supply and demand would dictate that they would be successful and those that allowed smoking would not. At worst they would co-exist allowing smokers and non-smokers alike to have a drink or listen to a band in an atmosphere (no pun intended) most pleasing to them. The self-righteous always know what is best for you and me; our freedom to choose be damned. They argue that smoking is a recognized health hazard with no redeeming benefits and thus, no one should be smoking in the first place. Similarly one could argue that skydiving is hazardous with no redeeming benefits too. After all, the best thing that can happen to a skydiver is to end up standing on the ground just like he was standing before the plane took off. Why not ban skydiving too? Auto racing? Eating fatty food? Running with a fork in your hand? What else? You might argue that since the voters approved the smoking ban that I shouldn't complain. After all, it wasn't a small group of bureaucrats or, worse yet, judges that snuffed out the cigarettes in Austin. Yes, the voters voted, but why should anyone that hasn't set foot in a bar in 30 years have a say? I'm a believer that the marketplace, not bureaucrats, judges or voters should decide. Banning smoking in bars, places where everyone that enters does so voluntarily, undeniably constitutes an erosion of the rights of smokers for no real benefit to anyone, including the smokers. They are going to smoke anyway. Some fear that smoking bans will eventually lead to bans on other behavior deemed "bad" by those that "know best." No one can say when that might happen, but the precedent has been set all across the country. When the rights of one group are stripped away, it only follows that no one's rights are safe from attack. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
