A Different (Conservative) Take on the Proposed Smoking Ban
Nathan Greene
in Iowa Smoking Ban, Statehouse Issues
|
2 Comments
|
1 Reference
By Emily Geiger
So I know a lot of people are up in arms about the proposed smoking legislation making its way through the Iowa Statehouse. One proposal would allow municipalities “local control” to decide for themselves if they want to ban smoking in their local jurisdictions. Another proposal is a state-wide ban on smoking in public places.
There are a lot of bloggers, especially conservative ones, that are up in arms about this… including our own Nathan Greene (see below) and Don McDowell over at Cyclone Conservative. These guys see a smoking ban as 1) an infringement on personal liberty, and 2) an infringement on the rights of individual business owners to decide for themselves how they want to run their businesses.
This is true, but so what? That’s what state governments do… they have police powers that allow them to regulate people’s behavior and what businesses can do.
Let’s not forget that cigarettes, and more precisely, nicotine is a drug. So, let’s look at it like any other drug. Should the state not be allowed to outlaw people dropping acid because that’s an “infringement on personal liberty?” Should the bar down the street be able to allow it’s patrons to smoke weed because that’s what the bar owner wants to do with his business?
Or, why not let people drink and drive? That prohibition certainly affects an individual alcoholic’s personal freedom. I can hear you saying now, “But drunk driving affects other people too by endangering their lives and health.”
And you’d be exactly right. But so does smoking.
I’m all for personal liberty. But your liberty ends where mine begins, and I don’t think government is overreaching when they step in to stop this infringement on my personal right not to have to breath your toxic fumes.
It really ticks me off that this seems to be shaping up as a Democrat v. Republican issue. It shouldn’t be. I know Rants gets a lot of big tobacco money, but letting that dictate how Republican legislators are going to come down on this issue will only reinforce every negative stereotype there is about the GOP and big business.
Let’s do what is right for the people of Iowa, not what’s going to get us big campaign checks next year….
References (1)
-
Response: Politics: Where I StandI believe that both smoking and drugs (for non-medical uses) should be illegal. Just because someone wants to destroy their lungs doesn't mean I should have to have mine destroyed as well by means of inhaling their crap.
Reader Comments (2)
I don't understand your reasoning where "... your liberty ends where mine begins...". By simple extension, everyone's liberty is confined by someone, rather everyone else. Since this is the case as you claim, whereby I must yield to your beliefs, I would be less able to pursue the overarching tenet of the Constitution, (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) whereas you would have a greater degree of achieving yours. Is that freedom? Whatever happened to "lie and let live"? I guess you already answered that....
This is absolutely not an infringement on "rights" Citizens can smoke now because the state allows it, they control the sale, distribution, and consumption of tabacco a "controlled" substance. The issue is protecting the innocents from friendly fire (or smoke as it were. Sex is legal (but not in public). Smoking may well take on the same status (but for different reasons) The health effects are indisputable and over 5,000 Iowans die ech year from smoking related maladies. A ban could lower this number by 10%-500 lives EACH YEAR, thats a large body count to be triflied away by self righteous smokers. Public health and welfare should guide our lawmakers- exclusions expose a different motivation. A total restriction is the only fair approach-the right thing to do is not difficult to recognize but is often difficult to implement.
Do the right thing Iowa, restrict public consumption now!