

> The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the
> nation from
> sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
> threat
> of second-hand smoke.
> The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that
> has been
> spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved
> -- the
> cancer of unlimited government power.
> The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a
> phantom
> menace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
> reaction?
> Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
> people about
> the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions,
> or
> should they seize the power of government and force people to make
> the
> "right" decision?
> Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
> attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their
> health, the
> tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
> Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they
> have
> actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs,
> shops, and
> offices -- places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or
> whose
> customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some
> local
> bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is
> obviously
> negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
> The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question
> to be
> answered by each individual based on his own values and his own
> assessment
> of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make
> regarding
> every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to
> befriend
> or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get
> married
> or divorced, and so on.
> All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
> consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
> neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions.
> He must
> be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and
> only
> his own judgment can guide him through it.
> Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack.
> Cigarette
> smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered
> annoying and
> unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered
> the
> power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
> That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
> inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at
> your
> favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated
> alarm
> at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and
> unlimited
> intrusion of government into our lives.
>
> http://smokersclubinc.com
> http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
> http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
>
> Thomas Laprade
> Thunder Bay, Ont.
go suck on your cancer stik.
atilano
Current thread (4 messages):
|
Home · Drink Recipes · Bookstore · Barstore · Handbook · Web Index · Feedback
Copyright © The Webtender.
About | Disclaimer | Privacy policy