However insignificant the minority, and however trifling the proposed trespass against their rights, no such trespass is permissible.

-- Herbert Spencer
Home     About Us     Contact Us     Get Active!     Promote!     Your Rights     Community     Resources for Lawmakers     Health     Economic Impact     Resources      
You're a Person Too     Individual Rights     Property Rights     Worker Rights     Taxation     Lllyd Corp v. Tanner      

"I don't smoke. I don't like smoke. I sit in the non-smoking section of restaurants. In fact, I favor a smoking ban on publicly owned property in closely confined areas where non-smokers have no easy escape from tobacco fumes. That said, most smoking bans are pernicious. They represent prying, busybody government at its worst - regulations without any respect for property rights, foisted on the public by anti-tobacco zealots armed with pseudo-science."

- From "Smoking Bans Continue an Assault on Freedom" by Robert A. Levy


 

Rights. Is there any more misunderstood or abused term in modern day society? Every time you flip on the TV or open up a newspaper, your inundated with "rights." And when it comes to the smoking ban issue, the key word being tossed around by both sides is "rights."

 

However, there is a fundamental flaw from both perspectives, and that is the fact that people need to understand rights - particularly the rights that this country were founded upon - in order to argue rights. The pro-smoking ban people have no grasp on rights. If they did we wouldn't be having this battle.

 

One of our most important rights as Americans is our ability to own our own property. It is one of the very pillars that this country was founded upon and one of the factors that originally drove the colonization of this nation.

 

Whether tangible "real" property or intellectual property, the ability to own something and be free from certain government and social tyranny was important enough to be part of the Declaration of Independence and our own Constitution.

 

So why are we allowing this basic right to be taken from us by giving de facto control and rights over our own property to government and special interests? After all, that is what smoking bans are. We are giving our property rights over to somebody else and giving them the ability to overrule our own. Does this sound like something that is in-line with the American ideal? It sounds more like cold war-era Eastern Europe to me...

 
"Of course, people have a right to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke, no matter what studies show. But they don't have the right to force everyone else to live according to their preference. Fortunately, the world can accommodate their desires along with those of people who don't mind tobacco smoke, just as it can accommodate people who like Chinese food and people who prefer hamburgers. Restaurant and bar owners want to make money, and they do so by catering to different market niches. In Northern Virginia, many restaurants and bars advertise that they are smoke-free, while others cater to a smoking crowd. This offering of many different choices is a virtue of open markets"
- From "Please Do Smoke, If You Like" by Thomas Firey, managing editor of Regulation magazine