Property Rights Up In Smoke
The Michigan Senate passed a bill banning smoking in “all workplaces including bars, restaurants and even casinos.” This takes Michigan residents one step closer to a huge loss in private property rights. It’s even closer, knowing that Granholm has stated her willingness to sign any bill aimed at banning smoking.
Even for someone who dislikes smoke in any type of establishment, I see this as a blatant violation of the rights of business owners. Any legislation that allows the state to restrict a voluntary action within the confines of a private establishment, opens the doors for further encroachments on our liberty.
Health concerns are completely irrelevant to this issue. Patrons of bars and restaurants are not obligated to enter any of these establishments, and they have no right to impose their will on the owners or the other patrons. No one has a right to a smoke-free restaurant or bar as a consumer. That would place an illegitimate obligation on business owners to provide such a service. Legitimate rights never impose positive obligations (requiring a smoke-free establishment) on anyone; instead they impose a negative obligation (ex. one cannot deprive another of free speech).
An owner absolutely has the right to ban smoking within their establishment, which has been done successfully in many cases. In doing so, the owner imposes no positive obligation on anyone else. Business owners are offering us something, not forcing anything on us. We can choose to do business with them or not; and our health decisions are much better left in our own hands.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
As much as I choose not to be around smokers, I will defend to the death, not only their right to smoke, but the rights of business owners to allow them to do so! This is outrageous and frightening legislation.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Don’t the people that smoke in these establishments impose their choice on those who choose not to smoke? Surely no nonsmoker is obligated to go to restaurants, bars, etc. where smoking is allowed; however, not smoking is allowed too, and if I choose not to smoke, I’m not imposing on the smokers– whereas, if they choose to smoke, they are imposing on my personal decision to not smoke, which is my right. If only the smoke would remain in the smoking section…
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 am
smokers are not imposing their choice on nonsmokers by smoking in an establishment where they allow smoking, because the nonsmokers are not obligated to patronize that establishment. They are voluntarily doing so with the foreknowledge that they may be exposing themselves to second hand smoke.
The right for a bar or restaurant owner to allow smoking is no different than allowing smoking in your house. a restaurant is someone’s property just as a home is. to deny someone the option to smoke (or allow their guests to smoke) in a building they own, is to deny them a fundamental right.
the problem that arises when an establishment offers a nonsmoking section that is not completely smoke free is a flaw in the service being advertised by the owner; it isn’t a violation of someone’s rights anymore than when you buy a product that doesn’t meet your expectations.