A group of city officials, despite the growing opposition of students, is blindly going forward with a proposal banning smoking in public establishments. In doing so, it has decided to take the supposed moral high ground, ignoring all legal wisdom and popular concern about individual rights. If this proposition passes, no one would be able to light up in a bar or restaurant, eliminating some of the last vestiges of legal smoking.
This proposal is dangerous and punitive because it is another example of government telling people what is good for them. This ban assumes the citizens of Madison are not smart enough to make their own decisions and the government should decide what is good enough for the public. The government has no basis for encroaching on activities that are legal, in places it has no business intruding. This group of city alders needs to be told that, no matter how unpopular a legal right is, the government has no basis attempting to legislate morality.
The other dangerous precedent being set by this law gives the government wide discretion in determining the behavior businesses allow. It was not so long ago that the possibility of a smoking ban in bars would have been as unlikely as a drinking ban. Drinking can also be extremely hazardous to one's health, with negative social consequences, but the idea of banning it from bars seem as illogical now as it did 50 years ago.
Suddenly, however, smoking is seen as such a public menace that even proprietors of bars can no longer decide which legal activities they will allow. Remember, despite what stigmatizing ideologues want you to believe, smoking is still legal in this country. Apparently, governmental regulation of legal behavior is no longer limited to government facilities or programs; now any business or individual can be told which legal behavior is allowable.
Ald. Steve Holtzman, District 19, has said Madison is a progressive city and therefore needs to do all it can to protect public health. Since when does Holtzman have the authority to ordain what is ethical? Obviously, smoking is an unhealthy addiction, but the same argument can be made for alcohol and caffeine. Alcohol is certainly destructive and promotes social ills, But no one is suggesting it be banned from bars. There are many substances and activities that are addictive, harmful and completely legal. What sets smoking apart is that, though it is supposedly lawful, there are many people hellbent on prohibiting it from our lives without due process.
As long as a behavior is legal, public officials do not have the right to indiscriminately dictate its execution. They have no grounds picking which legal actions private businesses are allowed to take. And they certainly do not have the right to tell owners how to run their businesses or individuals how to live their lives.
This is an issue better left solved by patrons and owners. If certain owners wish to ban certain actions in their bars, that is their business. Let them reap the benefits or pay the consequences of a public that either wants smoking or wants it gone. The rule works both ways; these owners have just as much right to allow smoking as they have the right to put up a sign that prohibits it. This is simple supply and demand-if people patronize bars that do not allow smoking, owners will notice. Legal action in this case is both excessive and invasive.
Even if you think that smoking is disgusting or wrong, it is an issue better left up to individual choice. We certainly do not need more unfounded intrusion from the government on our rights.
