Mr Davis' deceptively worded question contains a false premise and that is that smoking in public places is legal. In fact, it is in some places and isn't in others. Even in a free country, the people collectively, through government decide what is and what isn't legal, by definition. So, the issue isn't government not allowing "legal acts", but government banning smoking, in particular, in specific places.
Properly phrased, Mr Davis' question is, "How in a free country, can people favor government dictating that restaurant cannot allow smoking, even when desired by its clientele?" That question is easy to answer, too. Second hand smoke kills. It's a legitimate government function to stop people from killing each other. All the rest of Mr Davis' rant about nannies and busybodies and perfume and whatnot is mere smoke.
6 comments:
Sorry, smoking IS legal - if patrons don't like it but the restaurant owner chooses to allow it, why not respect the restauranteurs property rights and let the complainers eat somewhere else? Welcome to the free market. We neeed to stop making more and more things illegal - I'm a liberal, but even I think this nanny-state mentality has gone too far.
Your argument assumes government should have totalitarian powers to make anything it wants illegal. That's wrong. The 9th Amendment to the Constitution says powers not given to the government are retained by the people. I don't recall the Constitution mentioning the power to ban Thomas Jefferson's most lucrative cash crop. Best,
Smoking in restaurants in the city of Arlington, Texas is NOT legal (as of Jan 1), otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
My argument doesn't assume government should have totalitarian powers. If you believe the smoking ban is unconstitutional, challenge it in court. If you can't get the Supreme Court to agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, push through an amendment spelling out explicit smoking rights. Until then, smoking in restaurants in Arlington is NOT legal.
This is simply a conflict of rights. The state has an interest in protecting the restaurant owner's private property rights. The state also has an interest in keeping citizens from killing each other. In this case, the state has come down on the side of life instead of property.
Diners who object to smoke in restaurants can dine elsewhere, or am I missing something?
If the 9th amendment still functionally existed, it WOULD be challenged in court. Since it's been trodden over in the name of the politically correct nanny state, happy dining.
Yes, people who don't want to die from secondhand smoke could just quit dining in restaurants altogether. Or start asking the owner if smoking might be encountered. Even then, you'd better be extra careful driving home, because drinking while driving would presumably be legal, too, since alcohol is legal.
I believe this might be the extreme libertarian position. But libertarians have had a hard time attracting support, either from the electorate or from judges. Most people recognize that smokers' rights end when they begin to threaten the lives and health of the rest of the public. Most people are sensible, in my opinion.
P.S. I do admire your Grits For Breakfast blog.
This isn't an extreme libertarian position - it's evidence that liberals have abandoned the idea that unemuerated rights are left to the people. That used to be what's called a "classically liberal" concept. To hear it denigrated as radical libertarian is just sad - evidence of the muddled and confused ideology which hinders 21st century liberalism from reaching a mass audience any longer, IMO.
I appreciate the props for Grits, and often agree with your stuff, too. But liberals who think they get to pass a law about ANYTHING they don't like is a big reason the reason why Dems can't win in the South anymore, and why for now they probably shouldn't.
Liberals need to reclaim the 9th and 10th amendments. They are our birthrights. Best,
I use the terms libertarian, conservative and liberal in the way they are commonly applied to politicians today, not in any classical sense.
When I say your position is libertarian, I'm not denigrating it. I'm implying that it's out of the mainstream. It's telling that the Libertarian Party candidate can't even get himself invited to a four-person gubernatorial debate that invites someone like Kinky Friedman. And I don't think even the Libertarian Party candidate is running on a platform to bring smoking back to our restaurants.
I'm not sure how the Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply here, as we're talking about a city ordinance, not a federal law. Regardless, the days when the Ninth and Tenth Amendments meant anything are long gone. That may or may not be a loss to our Republic, but from a practical point of view alone, smoking in restaurants is not the cause to rally around to bring back respect for unenumerated powers.
Post a Comment