Those who care about us more than we care about ourselves are at it again. It appears that some members of the Dallas City Council want to further their citywide smoking ban, which already includes most restaurants, to engulf bars and even tobacco shops. A few in the state legislature want to start a statewide ban. Yes, it appears those who are psychotically driven to trespass into the lives of others want to give smoking establishments a big, dysfunctional hug.

A few years ago in Dallas, a friend of mine spent over six thousand dollars for ventilation in a small restaurant that he designed to serve the cigar dinner market. For those of you who are shocked that there is such a thing, let me explain. It happens that right here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, some folks actually like to enjoy fine, often expensive dining in a private venue, while enjoying their favorite cigar. That is now a crime in Dallas and many other places. It doesn’t matter if the restaurant was engineered to serve the smoking trade or is totally separate from the non-smoking public.

This new holy war seeks to cleanse society of bars that permit smoking, as well as tobacco shops. Just in time for the recession, the leading lights of political correctness are going to slow down the trade in tobacco shops and taverns that allow one to spend money on their favorite minor pleasures. In the Land of Everything Is Up for a Vote, a bunch of screeching busybodies can’t keep their noses out of other peoples’ business and are trying to force their will on others who are peacefully assembled and spending their money on something they enjoy in a privately owned establishment.

I can hear the chorus. It goes something like this: "But smoking is baaaaad for you; therefore, we need to stop it." What many in that chorus mean is: "I don’t care if the majority of restaurants are smoke-free, I will not be happy until I shove my way into everyone’s business and to heck with your personal and property rights, unless you want to kill a person in-vitro or drink soft drinks until you bloat up and crush bystanders or merely want to nanny and gripe your fellow citizens to death."

Many do-gooders point to the health risks that no doubt accompany smoking, especially cigarette smoking. Well, if we are going to try to limit cigarette smoking by forcing our will on our neighbors by government mandate, how long is it going to be before we limit by some legal statute soft drink consumption? How long before we mandate a certain number of hours of exercise per week? All might be good for our citizens’ physical lives, but does anyone ever consider that our government was predicated on private property rights and the right of each and every citizen to pursue their own happiness? I think if you don’t want to fire one up, you at least need to chill out.

The most virulent anti-smoker – and vegetarian, for that matter – in human history was Adolph Hitler. That would make him the original anti-smoking Nazi. He probably died of a gunshot wound – maybe self inflicted – at the age of 56. His arch nemesis Winston Churchill, a heavy cigar smoker and drinker, died in 1965 at the age of 90. Was Churchill’s lifespan a product of his smoking and drinking? Probably not, but he lived to be 90 without having to give up his cigar. No doubt Churchill would have looked upon our busybody anti-property rights activists with complete and utter disdain. Where is our perspective?

Others in the activist crowd want to point out that since smokers are on average more subject to various diseases that they have the right to circumvent smokers’ property rights and peace and quiet because there is such a cost to society. That argument has been all but abandoned in light of recent studies. While smokers generally die a few years younger on average, the fact is most pass on after the age which the great majority of us contribute meaningful tax revenue to social insurance such as Medicare and Social Security. Ghoulish though that analysis might be, the fact is that most smokers cost taxpayers less than most non-smokers during an average lifetime when it comes to all social insurance, especially if you also factor in the cost of additional Social Security payments that go to longer-lived non-smokers.

It used to be that most adults understood that one had certain latitude in their private pleasures, even vices. Bluntly, we are a nation that allows hang-gliding, helmet-free motorcycle riding, bungee jumping, and extreme skiing. We should not challenge those who wish to socialize and smoke.

After all, there are plenty of smoke-free environments. The market demands them. Some folks have medical conditions that make that necessary, and I also support any private property owner, such as a restaurant owner, who wish to operate smoke-free. The market also demands a few smoking environments. Leave them alone.

Paul D. Perry

A few years ago in Dallas, a friend of mine spent over six thousand dollars for ventilation in a small restaurant that he designed to serve the cigar dinner market. For those of you who are shocked that there is such a thing, let me explain. It happens that right here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, some folks actually like to enjoy fine, often expensive dining in a private venue, while enjoying their favorite cigar. That is now a crime in Dallas and many other places. It doesn't matter if the restaurant was engineered to serve the smoking trade or is totally separate from the non-smoking public.

This new holy war seeks to cleanse society of bars that permit smoking, as well as tobacco shops. Just in time for the recession, the leading lights of political correctness are going to slow down the trade in tobacco shops and taverns that allow one to spend money on their favorite minor pleasures. In the Land of Everything Is Up for a Vote, a bunch of screeching busybodies can't keep their noses out of other peoples' business and are trying to force their will on others who are peacefully assembled and spending their money on something they enjoy in a privately owned establishment.

I can hear the chorus. It goes something like this: "But smoking is baaaaad for you; therefore, we need to stop it." What many in that chorus mean is: "I don't care if the majority of restaurants are smoke-free, I will not be happy until I shove my way into everyone's business and to heck with your personal and property rights, unless you want to kill a person in-vitro or drink soft drinks until you bloat up and crush bystanders or merely want to nanny and gripe your fellow citizens to death."

Many do-gooders point to the health risks that no doubt accompany smoking, especially cigarette smoking. Well, if we are going to try to limit cigarette smoking by forcing our will on our neighbors by government mandate, how long is it going to be before we limit by some legal statute soft drink consumption? How long before we mandate a certain number of hours of exercise per week? All might be good for our citizens' physical lives, but does anyone ever consider that our government was predicated on private property rights and the right of each and every citizen to pursue their own happiness? I think if you don't want to fire one up, you at least need to chill out.

The most virulent smoker - and vegetarian, for that matter - in human history was Adolph Hitler. That would make him the original anti-smoking Nazi. He probably died of a gunshot wound - maybe self inflicted - at the age of 56. His arch nemesis Winston Churchill, a heavy cigar smoker and drinker, died in 1965 at the age of 90. Was Churchill's lifespan a product of his smoking and drinking? Probably not, but he lived to be 90 without having to give up his cigar. No doubt Churchill would have looked upon our busybody anti-property rights activists with complete and utter disdain. Where is our perspective?

Others in the activist crowd want to point out that since smokers are on average more subject to various diseases that they have the right to circumvent smokers' property rights and peace and quiet because there is such a cost to society. That argument has been all but abandoned in light of recent studies. While smokers generally die a few years younger on average, the fact is most pass on after the age which the great majority of us contribute meaningful tax revenue to social insurance such as Medicare and Social Security. Ghoulish though that analysis might be, the fact is that most smokers cost taxpayers less than most non-smokers during an average lifetime when it comes to all social insurance, especially if you also factor in the cost of additional Social Security payments that go to longer-lived non-smokers.

It used to be that most adults understood that one had certain latitude in their private pleasures, even vices. Bluntly, we are a nation that allows hang-gliding, helmet-free motorcycle riding, bungee jumping, and extreme skiing. We should not challenge those who wish to socialize and smoke.

After all, there are plenty of smoke-free environments. The market demands them. Some folks have medical conditions that make that necessary, and I also support any private property owner, such as a restaurant owner, who wish to operate smoke-free. The market also demands a few smoking environments. Leave them alone.

Comments (4)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment