News-Record.com

I agree with this letter. There is no right to smoke.

However, I would add that all property owners are infused with certain rights. Their rights are not, however, all encompasing, as they are still subject to zoning and fair use of their property and the like. I can't just put a land-fill in my back yard, even though I own the property.

What I think annoys a lot of people is that new smoking restrictions removes the ability of some property owners from allowing or disallowing smoking themselves.

However you cut it, governmental regulations in this regard serves to diminish the rights of property owners.

Rightly or wrongly, for good or ill can be debated. Owners have many rights with their property, but not unrestricted rights. Where does smoking fall within an owner's rights? This is a completely different question than whether smokers themselves have a right to smoke.

On a side note, I see a parallel with this argument and one for making abortion illegal. We all have certain rights to how we live and what we do with our bodies, but these rights are not completely unrestricted. What level of restrictions can the government mandate?

Are our rights only what the government gives us, or are our rights what we give ourselves through the government?

Excellent response, swanks. For two years I have tried to point out property owners/leasees do not have unrestricted license to do anything they want with their property. It is especially true with regards to business owners whose business is serving/dealing with the public.

There are all kinds of regulations already in place that require restaurant owners to comply with health department issues. Well, second-hand smoke is a major public health issue.

I may not like governmental regulations that restrict me from doing as I please with my property. But as a responsible property owner, I realize what may be right for me may not be right for the general public.

If business owners want to provide inhouse smoking, make the establishment all smoking and post a large sign notifying me of such. I will see it and know that owner does not want my money. But this smoking/non-smoking section stuff does not work. Be one or the other. Just don't lure me in with the promise of smoke-free dining and sucker punch me with an invisible wall that is suppose to provide what you have advertized. One or the other, period.

Yvonne I usually agree with you on most things, but I'm not really on board with the all smoking thing. By virtue of not being a non smoking establishment I think most people can decided if they want to go there or not. I choose not to smoke, and there are many restaurants that have smoking sections the I will still visit because I am happy with the seperation, there are other restaurants that do not have good seperation so I don't go there.

As to the LTTE, I still think the right/ability to labels are just that, labels. I don't think one can draw a line and say that just because something isn't specifically referred to on the constitution that people can't use the work right. I think there are many things, that we as a americans feel are our rights even though they are not in the constitution. Our constitution does not say that I have the right to listen to my radio loud or that I have the right to wear my hair in pigtails or that I have the right to wear a low cut blouse, does that mean that I don't have the right to?

When I have said in the past that have a right to smoke it was not because I was holding up the Constitution, it was because by having freedom, i felt it was my right as a freee person to do what I want to with regards to something that is still a legal activity.

I don't smoke anymore, but I choose not to impose my opinions on others. If I encounter a person who is smoking, I have a personal responsibility to take myself away from the smoke. To protect myself.

Very good letter!

LBB,

Thank you for an amiable disagreement. I understand where you, as a former smoker, are coming from. You possess a vantage point that I do not. While I have compassion for people who have a smoking addiction, I think it is wrong for them to disregard all the dangers of second hand smoke when the health of others is involved. Therefore, I do not believe in public smoking UNLESS it is in a facility that is specifically for smoking customers.

Naturally, I do not approve of taking children into such a facility. But what smokers do with regard to their own health, in an appropriate place, is none of my business. That is why I have spoken out in defense of smoking rooms, bars, restaurants. I just think, in all fairness, such places should be separate and apart from non-smoking places.

Actually, it was a dear blogging friend that first suggested separate facilities. I had never thought much about it. But she is a smoker and showed a compassion for non-smokers. The thought struck me as a way to appease both groups. (Where are you Kat?)

All this is really a moot point, however, as most places are voluntarily going to non-smoking. Business/restaurant owners are realizing it is more profitable for them to do so. They can turn over a table of non-smoking patrons quicker than a table of smokers.

I hope the reason you are now a non-smoker is doing well. I admire the fact you were able to quit when you became pregnant and have been able to stay quit. Many women are not so motivated, which is beyond sad to me.

"If business owners want to provide inhouse smoking, make the establishment all smoking and post a large sign notifying me of such."

That will not satisfy the anti-smoking zealots, whose ultimate goal is to ban smoking completely.

Knowing that a total ban is a political impossibility, their agenda is to advance any regulation that will restrict the use of tobacco, no matter how poorly thought out the restriction may be.

The zealots don't care what you or I think about the topic.