Column: Smoking ban infringes on rights
Published Feb. 12, 2010
A recent bill proposed by Rep. Walt Bivins, R-St. Louis, would ban smoking in public places throughout Missouri.
By passing this bill, legislators are coming into your business and regulating what you can or cannot do. The last thing we need in this country is more government intrusion in our lives, telling us what to do at our own businesses. Although I am not a smoker, nor do I enjoy the smell of smoke, I am a conservative. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms and rights.
Nobody, not even a smoker, enjoys walking into a bar or club and seeing a big plume of smoke coming at him. But I'd say most Americans support owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit. Taking this away is wrong. If you don't want to be around the smoke or are worried about your health, why not just go down the street to the smoke-free bar?
Most of the proponents for this bill cite health as their No. 1 reason for supporting it. But in a free country, can we not make our own choices about our health? Why not let people make their own decisions about whether to go drink at a smoke-free bar or a smoker-friendly bar?
If we allow this government regulation, what will legislators try and regulate next? What types of foods restaurants serve, what type of salad dressing we use? Personally, as a non-smoker, I choose to stay out of a lot of establishments that allow smoking, but I do not want to take that choice away from other Americans.
What about the children? Yes, there's always the argument that secondhand smoke affects young children at restaurants, and I support a smoke-free ban anywhere citizens less than 18 years old are allowed.
Most of the time, children and teens have little to no choice over where their family goes to dinner, so why allow them to be exposed to secondhand smoke that can kill them? It just makes sense to support a bill banning people from smoking where young children or teenagers might be. We should not take the choice away from adults who make the choice to enter a smoking establishment.
If we allow the government to socialize our health care system, this could be a justified ban. By allowing the government to socialize our health care, we give them complete control over every aspect of our lives, because every thing we do affects our physical or mental health in one way or another. Telling citizens they cannot enter smoking establishments will be within their authority.
Those on the far left who criticize me and say this is a ludicrous claim are kidding themselves. With socialized health care, we have no way of knowing what the government will regulate next.
Clay Carter is a sophomore finance major and can be reached at ccp6c@mail.missouri.edu
Comments (24)
8:27 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Harper said:
Opposing a ban on smoking because of a Health Care bill that has not been passed in the Congress yet? We don't even know what the bill will be yet, or if it will even pass! Sounds like Missouri has got tea bag fever. Besides College boy, can you smoke in your dorms?
8:34 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
David said:
A recent bill proposed by Congress would ban murder in public places throughout Missouri. By passing this bill, legislators are coming into your business and regulating what you can or cannot do. The last thing we need in this country is more government intrusion in our lives, telling us what to do at our own businesses. Although I am not a murderer, nor do I enjoy the sight of blood, I am a conservative. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms and rights. Nobody, not even a murderer, enjoys walking into a bar or club and seeing a big pile of bodies laying on the floor. But I'd say most Americans support owners' right to run their businesses as they see fit. Taking this away is wrong. If you don't want to be around the corpses or are worried about your health, why not just go down the street to the murder-free bar? Ok, yeah, that's a bit stupid and an extreme example, but the point is this: Many, many behaviors are already illegal. These behaviors are illegal because they cause harm. It is illegal to inject heroin in public. How dare the government take that right away? They do so because it is harmful. Smoking is harmful. It causes dozens of health problems. You don't even have to be the one smoking it to have some minor issues. Yet here you are, acting as though this is the only harmful behavior that is outlawed and how-dare-they-limit-our-freedoms? Laws exist to protect the people. This law exists to protect the people as well. Does it forbid a certain activity? Yes. All laws do. Is that a human rights violation? No.
9:15 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Sharon said:
In Canada this smoking ban also included the Veterans club (the Legion). Geez, these guys fought wars for us, have a private club and they are no longer allowed to smoke in there. In the UK when the smoking ban hit public places quite a few pubs were forced to close down - completely changing the face of the british pub. I don't smoke either but I was quite happy with a smoke free zone in restaurants. However what really facilitated the no smoking in public places was the death of a waitress in Ottawa, Canada from working for years in a smokey pub/restaurant from cancer. I don't know - I still see it as an infringement of our personal freedom.
9:20 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Pete Dixon said:
Any time a smoker's actions lead to carcinogens being funneled through my airways my rights are being infringed. One could say that that means smoking has to be restricted to private homes, but as a kid I grew up in haze of tobacco smoke. I say just ban the stuff!
10:10 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Giuseppe said:
In response to David's cheeky look at this article, he has confused what Rights theory is about. Murder and Cigarette smoking are a false analogy. Murder directly violates another person's rights. Smoking in a private-public space (like a bar) does not violate anyone's rights as long as they were not forced to enter the establishment. Murder causes the highest health issue possible. Cigarette smoking contributes harm to the body. Walking around New York City contributes harm to your body. A bag of Doritos, eating eggs grilled with butter, or not running 5K every day contributes to your health problems. Laws exist to protect people, yes. Laws SHOULD not exist to protect people from themselves. Your same logic could justify an entire nanny-state government wherein government agents could regulate your breakfast, give you vitamins every day, make sure you read your books, government traffic speed regulators, television censors, uniforms, etc. I would suggest that if you enjoy the idea of a "nanny-state utopia" you move to places that allow you to enjoy that lack of freedom, like North Korea. While the USA is not a complete beacon of freedom, and we do (unfortunately) have elements of paternalism any steps that we can take to remove government interference in personal lives is a step in the right direction. Perhaps your ill-suited analogy would be better off using "cannibalism between consenting individuals" or "physician assisted suicide."
10:11 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Doug said:
A smoker will always have the freedom to go somewhere else to smoke, and to stop being so selfish as to force others to breath their nasty exhalations. Freedom has nothing to do with forcing nonsmokers to breath a smokers excrement. Smoke somewhere else! That is where your freedom is.
10:25 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Reed Richards said:
A smoking ban like this will do far more damage than we can hope to solve. I already see it now working across a middle school, before when these children were exposed to smoking and parents talked with their children about what they saw in bars(the smokers) most kids stayed away.. Now that it is completely banned most parents seem to think that they do not need to talk with their kids and they are all becoming smokers at a VERY young age. Bans like this never work, Just because you put something on a piece of legislation and say that you solved a problem doesn't make it true. Right now in my opinion, the only way to really address the smoking issue in our country is to work with the people who are smoking, not ban and discriminate against them because your afraid of the one in a million second hand smoke damage. If you really believe in opposing smoking for that reason than please stop driving, You have a higher chance to kill than smokers do..
11:24 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Bill Wilkins said:
Jut another liberal ass who thinks he has "the right" to give people can cancer. Can I drink beer in public? Watch porn in public? Catch my drift son?
12:16 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Greg Daniels said:
Well if smokers switched to those new Crown7 Electric cigarettes I keep seeing everywhere then they wouldn't have to worry about bans.
12:21 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010
JT said:
While smoking has been linked directly to health issues the evidence of second hand smoke causing issues is biased at best. The baseline here folks is where does it end? Should I stockpile Bacon? How about Cheese? If these laws are enacted under the guise of Health then in turn we MUST also ban all things proven to be unhealthy. i.e. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
12:31 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Jay M said:
I guess we have to ban automobiles,fires,and gas stoves as these give off deadly carbon monoxide... If an owner of an establishment wants to allow smoking in their establishment, that should be their right. "Doug"-you have every right to LEAVE a smoking area.nobody is "forcing" you to do anything "Harper"-you can't smoke in dorms,much like apartments and hotels,because of fire issues..and it leaves an odor that nobody wants to smell. "Dixon"- do you breathe outdoors? if so,carcinogens are being funneled through your lungs with every breath. "Wilkins"- a smoker does not have the right to give you cancer..don't go near smoke...but they do have to right to give themselves cancer.Also, beer and porn are poor examples as they mostly affect only the person doing the drinking or watching the porn. "Guiseppe"- I AGREE
1:44 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010
nick said:
I love how non smokers are so prententious they think they have the right to tell other people where they can or cannot smoke.
1:48 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Scot said:
Doug: You, as the non-smoker, have the freedom to avoid a place that a smoker is smoking. Is it hard to cross the street? Bill: You can drink a beer in public (a bar). As a smoker I find it interesting that people believe by passing by a smoker on the street they are going to get black lung. How about we outlaw obese people from being places that children and teenagers might be? It has been shown that obesity spreads among social circles (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/370), and also that obesity related health costs are more than smoking related health costs. Lets find a new scape goat, obese people. Wait, since the majority of people are overweight or obese this will never happen.
2:16 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Bill Hannegan said:
Surgeon General Carmona could only conclude that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer by including Asian ETS studies, which typically have results twice as strong as American and European studies, and by excluding key American research. The best American and European research alone did not back him up.
2:31 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Damir said:
So what will happen when they tell you that you no longer can put butter on your toast? Driving cars exudes CO and other bad gasses..So what you will ban driving? Drinking is bad makes potential harm to non-drinkers.. What the hell this country is going to? If you want to have your life controlled get the hell out of this country and go somewhere else...Iran or Korea come to mind...
3:51 a.m., Feb. 13, 2010
harleyrider1978 said:
More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%. “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders. The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens. “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.” They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.” http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization_.html This is a Swedish study. “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156 In conclusion let’s have a balanced debate and not characterise smokers as race akin to the devil.
4:25 p.m., Feb. 13, 2010
Ken Hill (non-smoker) said:
Hooray for Fascism Hooray for Fascism. Let us all jump up and down and sing in joy, like little children, but we are adults that know Fascism is evil and to make emotional decisions about our children's future based on our government's irrational anti-smoking agenda, is in not in their best interest. Capitalism can thrive without war. It is a producer of goods and services. Capitalism trades with other countries. Fascism depends on the demise of Capitalism. Fascism destroys the means of producing goods and services necessitating invasion against other countries. Big Government assists Fascism to exist by forcing their will upon the population with more and more sweeping legislations. Small Government relies upon the strength of the people, not their weaknesses', to project hope into the future. Capitalism requires courage to move forward, Fascism cowardice. Fascism always hides, represses their rotting, self-betrayed inner state while spewing "there is no hope, the earth is dying" mentality upon the world. Anti-smoking bans are part of this process. The earth is not dying, but the strident forcefulness of 'chicken littleism, politicized environmentalism, Fascism' must be identified and eradicated.
2:10 p.m., Feb. 16, 2010
Rick Hyer said:
"legislators are coming into your business and regulating what you can or cannot do"?? Are you kidding? Since when is it OK to allow Business Owners to kill people with their pollution? I bet Monsanto would love having you on their side!! When People's health is at stake, we NEED goverment rules to outlaw innocent people (i.e. workers) from being sickened or killed from Business's air and water pollution. 39 States cannot be wrong!!!
8:43 p.m., March 8, 2010
Bob said:
This has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with the government finding another way to tell business owners and citizens that they control everything, even something as trivial as smoking. Ayn Rand once said that the government doesn't want a nation of law-abiding citizens because a democratic government in theory has no control over law-abiding citizens. So to control us they simply make more and more things illegal until we're all criminals they can fine or arrest or assert their dominance over. Secondhand smoke is carcinogenic. That's irrelevant. Business owners are free to implement their own no-smoking policies and many in the state of Missouri do to cater to a non-smoking crowd clientele. Many others allow smoking to cater to their own brand of patrons. That's the beauty of America. If you don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke don't patronize or work in a smoke-filled environment. All you hypochondriacs who want this passed should take note of smoking bans in other states and realize that all you're doing is harming quality of life further by moving the smoke outside where passerby who really don't have a choice in the matter get to breathe it in instead of the people who by their own volition chose to come inside a smoking establishment. And if you live near a bar enjoy being up all night listening to the smokers gathered outside as well as the multitudes of cigarette butts that will litter the sidewalks now that they're no longer being disposed of in ashtrays inside.
6:51 p.m., May 4, 2010
alk said:
it is true. adults can choose not to go into a public place filled with smoke if they don't like it. What about children who don't have the voice or ability to up and leave the situation? infants? toddlers? elementary age? middle school? Anyone under 18?? I say let's ban smoking in homes with children living in them. Oh, and cars too. Those people may as well not have had children if they were going to intentionally risk and neglect their child's health?
11:52 p.m., June 10, 2010
A kid said:
Smoke-free policies for public places (and all they exempt)may be instituted on a local level- Smoking is not banned everywhere, just in places where risk of death from smoking is at its highest. Smoking is not a legal right- smokers are not a protected class under the constitution. Go to your city mayor and demand the local government the freedom to run your own bar the way you want to.
4:35 p.m., Nov. 9, 2010
Matthew said:
you know in all honesty. i find this arguement rediculous. if it should be illegal to smoke some where, why not take what ever hobby you enjoy, and ban that as well. its not our fault that people who dont care for smoke choose to go places where smoking is ok. think of the recent bill added to the us military. Homosexuals can now freely join. Because they said it was wrong to keep them from joining. which, even though i hate the bill, is right. if a smoker cant smoke in public, then i say non-smokers cant be in public either. by banning smoking we are just giving more power to an already, overly libral, government. which the us was NOT founded on. Government needs to take its nasty little nose out of our lives. thats not what its here for. Giuseppe has a good point btw.
3:23 a.m., Feb. 12, 2010
Bill Hannegan said:
Clay, according to the latest survey by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, most Missourians agree with you. Only 27 percent of Missourians support a total ban on smoking in bars and cocktail lounges. http://www.scribd.com/doc/8831046/Data-7