2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor: A non-smoker's perspective on restaurant smoking ban
Issue date: 4/4/08 Section: Commentary
To the editor:
Let me begin by saying that I have never smoked a cigarette in my life and cannot stand going to bars that allow smoking. Yet, as many people clearly do not understand, just because I - or a group of people - do not like it, does not mean that I - or the group - am allowed to take control of any individual's private property and dictate to them what they can or cannot do. That is the opposite of freedom.
A bar or restaurant is not public property like a park; it is private property which the owner has graciously made available to provide to whomever so desires. A service. We don't have to use that service if we don't want to, but it's there for us if we do. The only catch is that we must abide by the property owner's rules since it is his or her property, not the government's or our own, as many like to think.
That being said, a government school like UNH, it could be argued, is public property since the government owns it and thus regulation could be a legitimate governmental action. Whether or not the government should be allowed to own property at all is another issue in itself. If, however, we accept (as most have) that all businesses are public property then what we have decided is that there is no such thing as private property.
The "owners," thus, have lost all freedom of control; the business is now a ward of the state and must conform to the dictates of the bureaucrats and politicians, whether in Durham, Concord or Washington, D.C.
They have lost the right to conduct their business as they choose and are forced by edict to surrender self-determination to the state. This is a Marxist belief, and one that must be rejected if we hope to live in a truly free society. I often hear people claim that we have a "right" to breathe clean air wherever we go. But how can you have a "right" to something that is on someone else's property? You cannot. You only have a right to clean air on your own property. You do not have a right to walk into someone else's establishment and demand they clean their air because you wish to enter.
Let me begin by saying that I have never smoked a cigarette in my life and cannot stand going to bars that allow smoking. Yet, as many people clearly do not understand, just because I - or a group of people - do not like it, does not mean that I - or the group - am allowed to take control of any individual's private property and dictate to them what they can or cannot do. That is the opposite of freedom.
A bar or restaurant is not public property like a park; it is private property which the owner has graciously made available to provide to whomever so desires. A service. We don't have to use that service if we don't want to, but it's there for us if we do. The only catch is that we must abide by the property owner's rules since it is his or her property, not the government's or our own, as many like to think.
That being said, a government school like UNH, it could be argued, is public property since the government owns it and thus regulation could be a legitimate governmental action. Whether or not the government should be allowed to own property at all is another issue in itself. If, however, we accept (as most have) that all businesses are public property then what we have decided is that there is no such thing as private property.
The "owners," thus, have lost all freedom of control; the business is now a ward of the state and must conform to the dictates of the bureaucrats and politicians, whether in Durham, Concord or Washington, D.C.
They have lost the right to conduct their business as they choose and are forced by edict to surrender self-determination to the state. This is a Marxist belief, and one that must be rejected if we hope to live in a truly free society. I often hear people claim that we have a "right" to breathe clean air wherever we go. But how can you have a "right" to something that is on someone else's property? You cannot. You only have a right to clean air on your own property. You do not have a right to walk into someone else's establishment and demand they clean their air because you wish to enter.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 18
MateDow
posted 4/04/08 @ 7:31 AM EST
The government is supposed to look out for the public good. The smoking ban is one of the ways that government is doing that. In this case, it was decided that the risks of second hand smoke was great enough to constitute a risk to the population as a whole. (Continued…)
allan.trombley
Allan
posted 4/04/08 @ 7:36 AM EST
Well said "Non smoker", That is only one of the many rights we have given up to what is becoming a secular progressive (the only time progressive means going backwards) society. (Continued…)
Gil
posted 4/04/08 @ 7:42 AM EST
Just wait Mate.
Across the country the powers that be are now restricting and banning fireplaces and woodstoves, this too will swoop into New Hampshire. (Continued…)
Question
posted 4/05/08 @ 1:25 AM EST
Hold your horses there folks!
Why does the question of the restaurant owner's rights even come up?
The only rights being encroached upon are those of the people who wish to smoke in the restaurant. (Continued…)
Is
posted 4/05/08 @ 8:25 AM EST
I'm not usually so curt or discourteous but,
"You only have a right to clean air on your own property."?
Get a clue kid.
timbone
posted 4/05/08 @ 8:35 PM EST
SECOND HAND SMOKE!!! for goodness sake, how old are these people, me and my dads generation lived in a smoking community where you even had ashtrays in the doctor's surgery - are we all dead? NO of course not. (Continued…)
Allan
posted 4/07/08 @ 8:35 AM EST
In response to House, or you can read: http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm, God forbid someone disagree with your agenda. No, I do not smoke, I am a reformed smoker, usually a smokers nightmare, but I don't believe in forcing my opinions on others with untruths and junk science (stay tuned for global warming "junk science"). (Continued…)
allan.trombley
Allan
posted 4/07/08 @ 1:11 PM EST
Yeah ls thanks for the "sophomoric" response. The bottom line of the article, if you even bothered to read it, is that the "data" presented was flawed, whether intentional or not. (Continued…)
Only The Beginning
posted 4/07/08 @ 9:54 PM EST
Mr. Boyle (from a fellow non-smoker),
Let us say goodbye to Uncle Sam and welcome with open arms the coming of the Nanny State. It starts with things like this, where thin arguments and "studies" by universities and "doctors" say that the data tells us that we are totally in the wrong and they undeniably know without a shadow of a doubt what is good for us in every possible facet of our ignorant, meaningless lives. (Continued…)
Post a Comment