So I have always thought the smoking ban is a ridiculous infringement on our property rights that uses a made up right, that of being able to go to any bar or restaurant and not be affected by tobacco smoke, to eliminate actual rights, those of owning property and assembly. So it is with great glee that I read this article in the Star-Tribune today that brings to light a loophole in the law that I first thought of just after it was passed.
The "Freedom to Breath Act", a name that is right up there with "The Patriot Act" or the "Defense of Marriage Act" for law names that are the opposite of what they are, has a provision that allows actors on stage to smoke. The provision fails to define "actor" or "stage" however which means that as long as the property owner claims that a production is being staged and that anybody smoking is a member of the cast there is little authorities can do.
Sure this is a loophole that will more than likely be closed as soon as those at the capitol can shake off the interim cobwebs and start up their regulation machine but it is a fun protest action non the less. I hope that this idea catches on for no other reason than to help bring attention to the over-regulation of our every day lives and so much of it is so poorly thought through.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Smoking Ban Loophole: Act One
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
For this discussion, Fact: secondhand smoke causes cancer (I am not claiming that to be true, but rather just trying to narrow the topic).
One of the functions of government should be to protect citizens from the businesses that employ them. The state of MN is within its rights and duty to pass legislation to protect the people working in these environments... that said, they did a poor job of it. Instead of a smoking ban, there should be parts per million and hours of exposure limits, just as is done for other high-risk professions (mining, radiation techs, etc.).
---
But was this law even necessary? If I go into a bar and spray febreze on random people I would get a disorderly conduct citation... why doesn't the same apply to blowing smoke?
Tobacco smoke causes cancer but people have the right to risk their lives if they so choose. We allow people to ride motorcycles, eat fatty foods, skydive or drink alcohol even though each of those involves a good deal of risk.
People choose to patronize or work at establishments where smoking happens. The idea that tobacco smoke is different from these other risks is due to the fact that some feel their desire to go to a restaurant or bar and and have no smoke is more important than the rights of the property owner and the people who choose to smoke.
The fact is people don't have a right to dictate the rules for another person's property simply for their own convenience.
People need to have employment to survive... and in a free market society government exists to protect the workers from business greed. I am only referring to the OSHA aspect of tobacco smoke. Are you saying that OSHA has no place in the libertarian "world"?
Business is no more or less "greedy" than any other group or individual. While we need to be productive to survive there is no set way we must do so. None of us were born into our jobs and while certain individuals have more options than others we still have to be responsible for our choices at some point. The law simply eliminates the option for somebody to run an establishment that allows smoking whether the people and employees would choose to or not.
The main job for OSHA is to protect people from dangers that would otherwise be unknown or cases in which an employer would commit fraud in regards to safety conditions. Police officers, iron workers, race car drivers and many other jobs involve very real and deadly risks. We allow those jobs to be done in the manor they are because those who choose to do them accept the risks.
The tobacco industry committed fraud when it knowingly covered up the toxic affects of it's product. That is in large part why it lost the Minnesota case. There is no question that the risk of tobacco it is common knowledge at this point and no reason that the state should now interfere with private property and individual choice.
The bill was passed because the majority of the population does not like smoke and wanted to force the owners of places they might like to go to get rid of tobacco.
Bar/restaurants are committing fraud in regards to their employees safety by allowing smoking in their establishments. You can't listen to a single program on public radio on the subject without hearing a 60 year-old bar owner calling in to say he's in perfect health after working in that environment for 40 years... they are ignoring the risk to employees and therefore government must step in and protect. This is a core function of any government... something that OSHA has failed dealing with, and so (for the wrong reasons - agreed) the state of MN has picked up the slack.
You make the fundamental mistake of most supporting these types of laws. You are punishing every part of a group for the perceived crimes of a few of that groups members. A few supposed bar owners you hear on the radio cannot constitute guilt of fraud by all bar and restaurant owners. Besides that there is no way any person believes there is zero risk from breathing tobacco smoke. If a 60 year old bar owner is truly healthy despite years of working in smoke it only says that exposure isn't 100% lethal, not that it is risk free.
Fraud by a few, even if it did exist, does not justify massive regulatory takings by the state. The law is about the well healed constituents of law makers whining about not being able to go into whatever restaurant they want and politicians knowing which side of their bread is buttered.
My mistake. I thought this was a Libertarian leaning blog, and not one of Anarchy.
"Besides that there is no way any person believes there is zero risk from breathing tobacco..."
No way any person? Really? And don't turn my comment regarding bar owners against me as a specific example when I was referring more to anecdotal evidence of a public notion regarding the dangers of smoking... and guess what: just because you know about the dangers of smoking does not constitute knowledge that "everyone" does.
OSHA regulated standards for exposure would not be an unjustified taking by the state... it would be the government fulfilling its obligation to its citizens.
You are correct in saying I can not know that "everyone" understands the dangers of tobacco smoke. But the fact is that it doesn't really matter. The burden of proof is on the state when it regulates or convicts a person or group. Neither you or legislators have shown any evidence of fraud committed by the people who's property rights have been restricted. I have already addressed why a general risk that is knowingly undertaken by all parties does not need to be outlawed and in many cases is not.
I also think it is telling that my support of a person's property and privacy rights seems to be anarchy to you. If it were true we have never had anything but anarchy until the last legislative session when the ban was passed.
Well written article.
Post a Comment