Since I read his blog (The Appleton Blog: Appleton's Smoking Ban), I've had a running internal dialog about whether or not I agree with Jeff's assessment of the situation. He brings up an interesting point, with the civil liberites angle.
So, here's the conflict that I see:
On the one had, smoking is not only nasty, it's dangerous. Not only for the person who smokes, but for anyone around them, because of second hand smoke. When my co-worker smokes, or the person at the bar at Applebees, or what have you, then I also smoke, with all the health risks that entails, regardless of what I want to do. It doesn't seem right to allow a perfect stranger to chose those health risks for me.
On the other hand, there's the civil liberties issue that Jeff raised in his blog. Our government is already huge, and this is another expansion of government. Is more government really in our best interest!
Government's purpose is to protect fundamental rights, such as the right act according to our conscience, have & use our property, and the protection of life. The more that I think of it, the more that I think that the smoking bans might come under the protection of life. Smoking is hazardous. There is no doubt about that. So, while I am very suspicious of expanding government, I think that in this particular case, the laws may be justified. And it is certianly more pleasant to visit places that don't allow smoking.
WPR's Ben Marens, 12 Jan 2006 3pm: Wisconsin's Failing grades from the American Lung Association
American Lung Association
The Appleton Blog: Appleton's Smoking Ban
No comments:
Post a Comment