Issue date: 1/28/09 Section: Opinion

I disagree vehemently with anyone who agrees with the smoking ban. I am not a smoker, nor do I find it enjoyable to be around those smoking. However, the notion that a government has authority to prohibit the actions of patrons on private property is deplorable. The editorial column suggested the right to eat and smoke are equal, but the one not essential to life-but to death-must be eliminated. Where are the rights of the owners of establishments? The notion of "public good" trumped such rights. You mention it as a "step in the right direction?" To what end? You agree to ban second-hand smoke damage in order to allow more people to receive first-hand liver damage. The government cannot define actions according to "public good," especially within the realm of private property. Privately owned businesses are as shielded from government intervention as private homes, cars, and bodies. Ayn Rand once wrote, "any claimed or implied conflict of 'the public interest' with private interests means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others." Individuals must evaluate and allow risk deliberately and freely, not under a guise of public interest.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools