Letter to the Editor - Advice Requested

cybrus

cybrus

Joined Feb 2005
2K Posts | 0+
Cedar Key
Hey - can you give me your opinion? I read the paper while I was at lunch, and there were two letters to the editor that ticked me off. Here is a link to the two letters:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06362/749442-110.stm(scroll down to the first one titled "Precious time is being wasted on the way to a smoking ban" and the second is right below it.

Here's my reply to them:

#####
On Thursday Dec 28th, Debbie Benkovitz and Scott Patrick both had letters published that complained about the smoking ban being put on hold temporarily.

I find it troubling when Debbie says "I am weary of our health not being protected." How is your health not being protected when you choose to work or visit a business that allows smoking? It seems to me that the choice was yours, or am I missing something?

Taking a different approach, Scott says "If a person wants to smoke, he has every right to go home and do it there." If you're employed by a business that allows smoking, you have every right to look for a job elsewhere if the smoking bothers you. If you're eating in a restaurant that allows smoking, you have every right to leave and cook dinner at home. Why is the property owner not allowed to decide what is allowed on private property? What makes your demands worth more than his or someone else's?

Also, when Debbie states that "the argument that 'businesses will suffer' does not hold up," I must ask "Who cares?" Whether the ban hurts business or not is irrelevant to this issue. The issue boils down to the fact that the government is preventing private property owners from running their business the way they choose. No one is forcing you to eat at, work for, or visit a place that allows smoking so where do you get the right to force them to comply to your demands?
#####

See anything that I need to fix?
 
 
It's my opinion that if a city, county or state government wishes to regulate smoking or outright ban the practice, they should not avail themselves of ANY tax monies on tobacco. Oh, I'm a non-smoker.
 
I'd have to agree with you. I smoke the occasional cigar, and I can't stand when side issues such as health or financial gain/ruin are debated when this all boils down to private property rights.
 
Business will suffer? If there are really that many people that feel that strongly about dining in a place that does not allow smoking, people would be making a ton of money opening places to cater to them. Lets not forget that the true voice of the people is capitolism. No one is going to operate a business people wont support. last I checked the bars and restaurants to do allow smoking are doing just fine. I might also point out that there has not been a study that conclusively prooves that second hand smoke is a health hazard. However, other public facilities such as parking garages are a health hazard. Seems to me this has nothing to do with health. Chicago passed its ban with the stipulation that establishments may continue to allow smoking if they can make the air inside as clean as the air outside. Such a statute elimates any health argument, but the anti smoking faction of the city still complains. If we are going to point to one truth in all of this, it is that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with health. If I am wrong please point out a study that shows it is difinitevely a health hazard. Do that I can show you a thousand studies that have been inconclusive at best.
 
I might also point out that driving your vehicle one mile in traffic puts out toxins far in excess of an entire carton of cigarettes. If these critics are still driving their cars, they dont have a leg to stand on.
 
private property rights are not absolute. you do not have the private property right to serve unhealthy food. because of the community health effects of unwholesome food, we regulate the food industry, even if it's on private property. and that is the right thing, IMHO.

we do not allow child molesting on private property, nor distilling without a license. I cannot open a piggery on my private property if it is in a residential area, which is total BS, but my neighbor can't either, which is of course the right result.

your right to emit smoke is no more special that my right to be free from your smoke. how we want to settle that is up to us. we can play first in time, first in right (whoever gets to the restaurant first picks smoking or not); we can alternate p the days when smoking is allowed; we can acccept smoking and tell non-smokers they have to put up with it (which is what we used to do); or we can tell smokers they are no longer allowed to impose their habit upon non-smokers in places open to the public (which is where we are headed).

none is morally or ethically superior to the other IMHO.

I do not smoke, but I used to. I am all for co-existence to the extent we can, and I dislike the incrementalist approch the anti-smokers are using, but I do not see anything particularly worthy about a habit that kills and harms in great disproportion to its perceived benefits.
 
The #1 killer in America is heart disease. If we are to abolish the right to smoke, then one must also consider the deleterious effect of fatty foods. Shall we ban those as well? We need to ban alcohol while we're at it. Think of all those drunk-driving fatalities and accidents. Flying emits radiation which has a harmful effect on our bodies. We need to ban smoking too. Boy, my head hurts from all this banning. Perhaps we should ban banning while we're at it. That seems like it's bad for us too.

People should have the right to take responsility for themselves. If you do something in an environment where others choose to do the same thing, so be it. Pure and simple.
 
Guys, Guys, Guys,
Can't you see....
eating in an unhealthy fashion, Drinking alchohol in an unhealthy fashion, Poluting the air by driving your car....
All these things are harmless to others.....
Smoking isn't.

This is how THEY see it....
You just CAN'T see .

Don't waste your time trying to confuse them with the facts...
 
I should specify by "unhealthy food" in my above post I meant food that was unsafe to eat, as in tainted, spoiled, contaminated, rotten, etc. not yummy fatty foods.
 
SLEEPER said:
Guys, Guys, Guys,
Can't you see....
eating in an unhealthy fashion, Drinking alchohol in an unhealthy fashion, Poluting the air by driving your car....
All these things are harmless to others.....
Smoking isn't.

This is how THEY see it....
You just CAN'T see .

Don't waste your time trying to confuse them with the facts...
Click to expand...

I'm not one with words, which is why I won't even try to contribute to this. However convoluted the anti-smoker's views may be and however seemingly impossible it may be to change things, one CANNOT give up. You can't get through the door without putting a foot in first.
 
delloro said:
private property rights are not absolute.
Click to expand...
Agree.
your right to emit smoke is no more special than my right to be free from your smoke.
Click to expand...
Agree. Sort of. In a vacuum maybe.
how we want to settle that is up to us.
Click to expand...
Disagree.

In the case of passive smoking regulations, statutes replace our relevance and WE don't settle anything between US.

When I here a rational theory of law that justifies barring a tavern owner from smoking a legal stick within the confines of private property that he owns, whenever he wants, I'll eat my hat. Until then I'll just have to be content knowing that liberty is an illusion, personal responsibility is for fools, and law is nothing more than an instrument of social policy to be naively followed for its intellectual creativity rather than its moral persuasion.

I appreciate and admire the balance you bring to discussion and thought here, but your reasoning eludes me.

I am not a lawyer. Fisk away... :wink:
 
All very good points in my book. I would like to state for the record that I dont object to compromise and agree there needs to be balance. However, I thought we were already compromising with seperate sections more air filtration or perhaps even seperate bars, taverns and restaurants. The anti-smoking faction in this country is clrearly not familiar with the word compromise. They are not going to stop their efforts until it is banned entirely. How do you compromise with this? I hate to sound childish but they are throwing the first punch here and we are just trying to defend our rights.

I have to say that Gobetween's post was excellent. Exactly what I was thinking and I do appreciate someone bringing balance to the conversation as well. The truch is this is also touching on a much bigger issue which is the role government is playing here.

The role of government is to work for the people, not the other way around.
 
i may be wrong ...

France went through/is still going through the same thing that we are here. France is not often right, but this time they came up with a ompromise that everyone was happy with.

it is LEGAL to smoke in bars/restaurants as long as the establishment has a completely different area to do it in and they run that area off of a different air filtration system.

i thought i would never say this but: France has it right. Lets look to them as an example.
 
I just think that a business should be able to decide whether or not they want to be a smoking establishment. After that, if you don't want to be in an establishment that enables smoking...don't go. Before the smoking ban here in Jersey, non-smokers had the option to go wherever they wanted, as opposed to smokers, who had less options because smoking was allowed in certian places. Now with the smoking ban, there are no options. I don't really even go out any more because it's just not worth it, and when I do I'm spending much less time (and therefore much less money) because I don't get to light up a cigar and have good conversation and a drink.
 
I often wonder about how much of this health issue is junk science. The attributes associated with "second-hand smoke" are worse than that attributed to the person who draws it directly into his/her lungs. I haven't smoked in forty years. It was my choice to stop. I did so long before the dire warnings appeared.

Your own home, and the distance between homes, is more than enough to protect the unaware passer-by from the contamination caused by smoking. Claiming that the miniscule amounts of tobacco smoke that emenate from a house even 10 feet away has no true basis in science.

It's much easier to see the results of the use of unhealthy foods and alcohol and other drugs in the population. Look around you. These are also affecting your bottom line in the form of extra taxes to treat the many people suffering from the ravages of these habits, especially when they become disabled. It also results in higher premiums for everyone on your health insurance.

Heck, look at the costs in tax dollars and insurance premiums for the privilige of owning and driving a car. Poor operations result in literally billions of dollars in repair costs, and billions of dollars in medical costs annually. What about the medical costs associated with respiratory problems caused by the internal combustion engine?

Just about everything that we do to live causes some health issue to someone. The smoking issue won't die because the same "we know better" scions of elitism are out to help you become one in their image, even if they have to kill you to do it.

By the way, I agree that tax monies derived from products that the same government is attempting to villify should be illegal. :D
 
delloro said:
private property rights are not absolute. you do not have the private property right to serve unhealthy food. because of the community health effects of unwholesome food, we regulate the food industry, even if it's on private property. and that is the right thing, IMHO.

we do not allow child molesting on private property, nor distilling without a license.
Click to expand...
Correct - because these are all illegal and private property doesn't allow you to circumvent the law. But until smoking is illegal, the government should not be regulating it on private property.

delloro said:
I cannot open a piggery on my private property if it is in a residential area, which is total BS, but my neighbor can't either, which is of course the right result.
Click to expand...
If you think it is BS that you can't, how can you consider it "the right result" that both you and your neighbor are prohibited? Just because everyone's rights are being infringed equally doesn't make it right or good, it just makes it consistent.

delloro said:
your right to emit smoke is no more special that my right to be free from your smoke. how we want to settle that is up to us. we can play first in time, first in right (whoever gets to the restaurant first picks smoking or not); we can alternate p the days when smoking is allowed; we can acccept smoking and tell non-smokers they have to put up with it (which is what we used to do); or we can tell smokers they are no longer allowed to impose their habit upon non-smokers in places open to the public (which is where we are headed).
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a debate over my right to smoke vs your right to be free from smoke. In a publicly-owned facility, I'd agree completely with you. "how we want to settle that is up to us." - I'd like to settle it by leaving the decision up to the owner of the establishment. If he wants to allow smoking (either because it will bring in more customers or simply because he wants to), then he should be able to. If enough people don't want to eat in a smoking establishment, then I guarantee you that a non-smoking establishment will open up nearby. If the entire area is strongly against smoking in restaurants and there aren't enough people willing to eat there, then lack of customers will either close the smoking establishment down fairly quickly or the owner will decide to change his policy in order to get customers back.

delloro said:
I do not smoke, but I used to. I am all for co-existence to the extent we can, and I dislike the incrementalist approch the anti-smokers are using, but I do not see anything particularly worthy about a habit that kills and harms in great disproportion to its perceived benefits.
Click to expand...
I smoke the occasional cigar and very rarely do I smoke outside of my own home. I don't like to eat in the smoking sections of restaurants, so I either ask for a table in the non-smoking section or I eat elsewhere. If they have really good food that I can't get elsewhere, I feel it is up to me to decide if the good food is worth the disagreeable atmosphere.
 
cybrus said:
Correct - because these are all illegal and private property doesn't allow you to circumvent the law. But until smoking is illegal, the government should not be regulating it on private property.
Click to expand...
but smoking in an private establishment is now illegal. so it's the same concept as the others I listed - the gov't can, and righfully does, regulate activity on private property. remember, my point is regulations on private property, not whether smoking is good or bad. If you are going to write a LTE, you will be on better legal and political ground if you avoid the private property issue, because IMHO it does not help your cause. Just trying to help you out here.

If you think it is BS that you can't, how can you consider it "the right result" that both you and your neighbor are prohibited?
Click to expand...
that was sarcasm. :wink:

I don't think this is a debate over my right to smoke vs your right to be free from smoke.
Click to expand...
It is now. that's a fact. that's how it is being framed, analyzed, and acted upon these days. we might not think that's the best way to deal with the question, but that's how America is dealing with it today.

In a publicly-owned facility, ... atmosphere.
Click to expand...
these are different arguments that I do not disagree with, but they don't address my point, which is that private property rights do not trump regulation of what were considered to be acceptable activities. I don't think that's an erosion of private property rights either, just a different application of a long-standing principle.
 
delloro said:
I don't think this is a debate over my right to smoke vs your right to be free from smoke.
Click to expand...
It is now. that's a fact. that's how it is being framed, analyzed, and acted upon these days. we might not think that's the best way to deal with the question, but that's how America is dealing with it today.
Click to expand...
That's my whole point as well - just because the current debate may be framed that way, as being between my right to smoke and your right to be free of smoke, doesn't mean that is the RIGHT way to frame it. The people in favor of the ban want to debate THAT issue in order to avoid the real issue which is whether a non-smoker's desire to eat at a restaurant trumps the restaurant owner's right to allow smoking. My argument is that it is the owner's right, not the government's, to decide if a business will allow smoking and then to let the free market decide if they agree. If we accomadate them by skipping the private property debate and move right on in to the "my right vs your right", then we're effectively agreeing with their premise that private property rights don't matter. I refuse to do that. This whole issue at the root is property rights.

If they don't want the base issue to be property rights, they need to make smoking completely illegal everywhere and then property rights won't even come into play. But that would be very hard to accomplish (at least right now).
 
The real, and most basic issue here is the appropriateness(is that a word?) of the control of human behavior by ANY agency, governmental or otherwise. These United States were founded because of oppressive regulation. The cry "Give me liberty or give me death" was a genuine, and ongoing, concern.
We desire the liberty to do as we please whenever and whereever we please. When our doing something poses REAL danger to others then we must accept regulation "for the common good".
Does my smoking tobacco, in whatever form, pose a danger to others?
IMHO these "threats" to others can be limited without requiring a "ban" on anything.
We must stand up to unnecessary regulation. We must speak out whenever unnecessary regulation is attempted.
 
IMHO - There is only one way to win the anti-smoking war.
Include drinking as often as possible.
There is much proof to support any claims.
Then it all will stop, because no one is giving their drinking up.
Personally I don't drink - never have - that has nothing to do with this.
Add a drinking ban to every anti-smoking bill & they will never pass.


Outside of that - Laws are going to far!
 
Login or Register • Reply

Similar Discussions

C
Since it's quiet around here (advice for newbies) ...
Replies
2
Views
2K
Cigars
Pistol Pete 1911
F
CT Supreme Court Sides Rules Against Smokers
Replies
0
Views
2K
Smokeasy
flagman
S
Issue #5 on the Ohio General Electoin Ballot
Replies
4
Views
1K
Cigars
chrisguinther
elidog
High Time
Replies
14
Views
2K
Cigars
Bikeman
Top
Back