Blowing smoke part 1
Recently here in Springfield a no smoking law was passed. As I understand it, this law affects restuarants and bars. It could cover more than that, I am not sure. My point, however, is that I feel this is a gross violation of personal freedoms. You might be asking "Now Corey, you fucktard, how can a no smoking law violate an individual's rights?" Well shut your corn-hole and read.
These business's are privately owned establishments whose owners should be allowed to decided what they want to allow to happen inside said business. The arguement has been made that the smoking should be banned because the second-hand smoke causes negative health effects to innocent bystanders, but the problem with this is, no one is forcing these people to enter the establisment in the first place. If patrons know that smoking will be taking place, and they do not want to partake, then they should not enter. It's that simple. By telling these business owners what they can and cannot do with their property, we are violating the rights they have over their property.
The state does have a duty to protect the health and rights of the public, but these private businesses are not hurting the public since they are not forcing anything on the public. Coal-fired powerplants hurt the public more than a bar that allows people to smoke does.
It has also come to my attention that private businesses cannot discriminate based on race, disability, etc. This is ridiculous. If you don't want someone on your property, then they shouldn't be allowed in. I realize this ethically wrong, but the state cannot take away the rights of an individual to protect the rights of the majority if the rights of the individual do not cause harm to the rights of the majority. And the individual rights cannot cause harm because the majority is not forced to patronize the business. The good thing is, in our capitalist society, the market would drive that business into bankruptcy by not using it. I know I sure as hell would not go to a restuarant that did not allow black people in.
This whole arguement comes down to individual rights and personal responsibility. Is smoking bad for you? yes. Do people have a right to smoke? yes, as much of a right as they have to drink, or to eat, or live. The fact is, you die a little each day from doing any sort of activity, smoking just accelerates that. However, a person does not have the right to infringe on anothers rights. Which is why smoking is illegal in public places.
Now I realize this arguement is coming from an untrained legal mind. And I'm sure there are some people out there that could run circles around my legal knowledge and point out all sorts of fallacies with my arguements. I welcome this criticism, but I also ask that you give me a chance to respond.
These business's are privately owned establishments whose owners should be allowed to decided what they want to allow to happen inside said business. The arguement has been made that the smoking should be banned because the second-hand smoke causes negative health effects to innocent bystanders, but the problem with this is, no one is forcing these people to enter the establisment in the first place. If patrons know that smoking will be taking place, and they do not want to partake, then they should not enter. It's that simple. By telling these business owners what they can and cannot do with their property, we are violating the rights they have over their property.
The state does have a duty to protect the health and rights of the public, but these private businesses are not hurting the public since they are not forcing anything on the public. Coal-fired powerplants hurt the public more than a bar that allows people to smoke does.
It has also come to my attention that private businesses cannot discriminate based on race, disability, etc. This is ridiculous. If you don't want someone on your property, then they shouldn't be allowed in. I realize this ethically wrong, but the state cannot take away the rights of an individual to protect the rights of the majority if the rights of the individual do not cause harm to the rights of the majority. And the individual rights cannot cause harm because the majority is not forced to patronize the business. The good thing is, in our capitalist society, the market would drive that business into bankruptcy by not using it. I know I sure as hell would not go to a restuarant that did not allow black people in.
This whole arguement comes down to individual rights and personal responsibility. Is smoking bad for you? yes. Do people have a right to smoke? yes, as much of a right as they have to drink, or to eat, or live. The fact is, you die a little each day from doing any sort of activity, smoking just accelerates that. However, a person does not have the right to infringe on anothers rights. Which is why smoking is illegal in public places.
Now I realize this arguement is coming from an untrained legal mind. And I'm sure there are some people out there that could run circles around my legal knowledge and point out all sorts of fallacies with my arguements. I welcome this criticism, but I also ask that you give me a chance to respond.
posted by captain_badass at 9:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home