| HOME | New Additions | NEWS ITEMS | ARTICLES | Letters from the Papers and DoH, MP & Press Emails | ODDS & SODS | LINKS | CONTACT |
Smoking ban: The debate isn't about health. It's about the limits of government power
Some South Carolina lawmakers are preparing to renew their push for a law banning smoking in all restaurants in the state. They think a new report from the U.S. Surgeon General adds weight to their argument.
They are wrong. The Surgeon General's report cites the dangers of secondhand smoke, but the debate over a law banning smoking isn't really about health. It's about the limits of government authority.
Should the state be telling every restaurant owner in the state that he must ban smoking in his restaurant?
Or should the state let the market work its will. Already, there are numerous smoke-free restaurants because many diners desire that atmosphere.
Restaurant owners who want to cater to that business ban smoking in their restaurants. But should those restaurateurs who want to cater to smokers be banned from doing so?
Why should the state limit the choices of restaurant owners and patrons?
It's not like health inspections, where the state makes sure that food is prepared and stored in a safe and healthy manner. Customers don't have the ability to inspect the kitchens of restaurants they might patronize. Without government health inspectors, you wouldn't know whether a restaurant is clean and safe.
But it's easy to know whether a restaurant allows smoking or not. The choice is up to the consumer. The exercise of government power is not necessary to assure health and safety -- that is unless you want the government to use its power to mandate healthy choices by all consumers and by all businesses.
If the government is going to declare that all restaurants must be smoke-free so that all diners are forced into healthy choices, then why doesn't the government start to regulate menus so that only healthy eating choices are included? After all, what's the point of going smoke-free if you're going to down a super-colossal-mega-triple-cheeseburger with extra mayo?
We don't want the government micromanaging our lives and our decisions that way. And it shouldn't manage the state's restaurants either. People can choose whether they want to eat or work in a restaurant that allows smoking.
The debate over banning smoking isn't really about health at all. It's about the tyranny of the majority. The majority of the public doesn't smoke and doesn't want to tolerate smoking in restaurants -- all restaurants. So there is this drive by some to use the power of the government to ban it.
Proponents of the ban aren't satisfied to patronize only those restaurants that provide the atmosphere they prefer. They demand that the government enforce their preferences on the rest of the state.
That's an unjustified expansion of government authority, and it shouldn't be enacted, even under the guise of health protection.