|
Property
Rights up in Smoke
By Brian Costin
I’ll admit it. As a non-smoker the dining or bar experience
would be much better for me if there was a non-smoking policy in
place. I do not like being around a lot of cigarette smoke. On
many occasions I have tried to convince friends who smoke that
they shouldn’t because of the stresses that habitual smoking
puts on the body. Often when leaving a bar or restaurant clothes
reek so badly from cigarette smoke that you feel like throwing
them away. I would like it if more owners and bars and
restaurants voluntarily decided to be non-smoking.
But my preferences should not be used to violate the property
rights of others. I understand that when I go to a bar or
restaurant that I do not own that establishment and have no
right to tell the patrons or owners to set a smoking policy to
my preferences. As an Independent Candidate for U.S. House in
the 6th Congressional district which represents Elk
Grove Village, I am against any form of anti-smoking regulations
on any private property, even if that private property owner has
graciously opened up their residence or business up to the
public.
Government has a right to set the smoking policy for public
spaces that are owned by the taxpayers such as municipal
buildings, schools, and other government agencies. A bar or
restaurant may be open to the public, but it is not owned or
operated by the government but rather the owners of the
business. It is not a “public space” in the sense that, it
doesn’t confer a right of usage or policy setting to the public.
Setting a village wide smoking policy for these private
properties would be a violation of basic private property
rights.
There is no telling on how far the government of Elk Grove
Village and Mayor Johnson plan to go in their anti-smoking
plans. Mayor Johnson said "If we think smoking is so detrimental
to the community that we should ban it, then we should think
about a ban on selling cigarettes,". A step further would be to
ban not only selling but also possession of cigarettes. Does
Mayor Johnson want to make criminals out of nearly 25% of Elk
Grove Village residents who smoke? Does Johnson want to police
your homes and fine/arrest peaceful citizens if they decide to
smoke? We must voice our opinion now before these frightening
steps are even considered.
As
we learned from prohibition, that while banning alcohol or
tobacco is a proposed solution to a health issue, the end result
is gangs in our streets profiting from a black market in the
sales of the prohibited items. Often these people are forced to
resort to violence to settle business disputes in absence of
legal court remedies. This puts our police men and women, not to
mention innocent bystanders, in the line of extreme danger. In
the end people who choose to smoke, or addicted to smoking will
have to pay much more for smoking and much more likely to resort
to crime to pay for the habit.
If
government sets the policy of no smoking in privately owned
businesses there is no limits to government power to regulate
all private property in Elk Grove Village and the rest of the
United States. If alleged health concerns are legitimized by
government as a reason to trump private property rights there
would be no surprise if the government becomes even more
meddlesome in our private lives. They would have the power to
take the ice cream off, the sugar out, and the candles off of
our favorite birthday cakes and desserts from our local
restaurants.
I
don’t know about you but I am not looking forward a restaurant
menu determined by fanatical health bureaucrats. Celery as an
appetizer, Tofu steak and Brussel sprouts for dinner and rice
cakes for dessert just doesn’t sound appealing to me. That is
just one reason why even though I am a non-smoker, I believe
that it is tremendously important that we protect the rights of
restaurants and businesses now against this aggressive
anti-smoking property rights violation movement that is trying
to take hold in Elk Grove Village. If we don’t protect the
property rights of others now no one will be there to protect
our property rights down the road.
Regardless of the alleged health issues, private property rights
are more important than health concerns of secondhand smoke.
This is because each and every citizen and parent has the
complete ability to avoid secondhand smoke. The simply don’t
have to go to restaurants that have smoke-policies that they
agree with. Private property owners have a right to a smoke free
environment, and there is nothing preventing anyone from opening
a smoke-free establishment. In fact there are already many of
businesses and restaurants that choose not to allow smoking in
their establishments.
Citizens and parents have and always will have 100% freedom to
choose weather or not to bring themselves or their children into
a restaurant or bar, and individuals have the freedom to own
their own business and set their own smoking policy. But
violating the property rights of others is an intolerable act
Just because a individual might want an hour or so of smoke free
dining at the restaurant of their choice does not mean they can
trump the rights of the owner who has likely spent years or
decades of his or her life building their opportunity to own a
bar or restaurant. The owner of the establishment is the only
one that has a rightful claim to set a smoking policy.
January 18th, 2005
|
