Topic: Ron Paul
Would Ron Paul Support a National Ban on Public Smoking? Ron Paul's faith in free market economics and his libertarian values should conflict over the issue of a public smoking ban. On which side of the fence would he lean?by World
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
I have a guilty pleasure to admit. Despite my enthusiastic support of the Ron Paul Revolution and my relatively new found appreciation for the Constitution's strong support of personal freedoms, I love my state's ban on indoor smoking. I am a non-smoker and work in healthcare which probably has something to do with my view, but I can't deny it. When I visit other cities where people smoke freely in bars, I find it uncomfortable, almost offensive. To be honest, it never used to bother me much until I experienced the alternative. Some libertarians might suggest that I could just avoid bars and restaurants in those cities, and let the owner of the property make the decision to have a smoking or non-smoking policy. I always felt my view was contradictory to libertarian values although I could justify my view similarly to how Ron Paul justifies his environmental policy - the individual who is smoking is effectively "polluting" the air I breathe and causing me potential harm.
John Stuart Mill defends this stance in On Liberty, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Apparently according to John Stuart Mill I am not a hypocrite. Proposed alternatives to state wide bans include tax or other incentives for smoke-free establishments and building codes increasing regulations on adequate ventilation in commercial properties with smoking privilege. Both solutions require bigger government and transfer additional costs down to the consumer
In an ideal world I would think that free market economics would take care of this situation. The demand by consumers for non-smoking venues would eventually create a supply of businesses eager for this customer base and people would be free to choose. After having lived in a city recently without a state wide ban, I have to admit that I found this not to be the case. Proprietors were apparently afraid to loose the business of the some 20% of Americans who still smoke and maybe due to the dynamics of bars and restaurants being social group gatherings, the remaining 80% were forced to pay the price of potential detriment to our health.
According to John Stuart Mill, libertarian ideology supports a national ban on indoor smoking in the interest of preventing harm to others. Ron Paul's views on pollution along with the libertarian logic of John Stuart Mill suggest that a national ban on public smoking could fit into the Ron Paul Platform. I wonder whether his conservative faith in free market economics to solve social issues would trump his libertarian core on this issue...
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of World only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. World is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I live in NC (big smoking state) and absolutely hate to be around cigarette smoke. I have noticed in the last year or so that a lot of malls and restaurants are banning smoking completely. I think public demand is driving this trend and it will continue. I don't think Dr. Paul would support a federal ban on smoking - he would say that it's up to the state or local governments to decide.
I am sick of blanket government bans and how to live fiats. They take away all choices and tell us how to live. Boo on that and buckle your seat belt.
It doesn't matter how much nonsmoking occurs. If you live in a city you are breathing enough crap in one day to equal a pack of cigarettes or more. What will you suggest for that problem? Giant air scrubbers so that you don't breathe second hand exhaust fumes? State-funded hazmat masks to protect you from all those uncaring polluting drivers?
This is the problem. Once the government starts mandating, it never knows where to stop. I am very leery of anyone advancing any measures based on the common good. The "common good" always removes liberties from someone else.
I'm guessing that Ron Paul would probably say that it is not Constitutional for the Federal government to impose such a ban, but that states and local government would be free to establish their own laws regarding such.
I wondered myself what his position was. Dr. Paul advocates individual freedom as long as you are not harming anybody else. Well second hand smoke is just as deadly as smoking, so that pretty much falls under the category of harming someone else. Do whatever you want, but not in public where you are harming other people.
Posted By: Dave Easterly
Date: 2008-01-17 16:26:25
Free Market solution - smoking bars for those that choose to and non-smoking bars for those that choose not to. If there are enough of each, both can survive and prosper in a free society. Although, as others have said before, states and local governments/municipalities could pass any laws they want in that regard. The only RIGHT way to regulate smoking at the Federal level would be the way they handled alcohol prohibition - as a Constitutional Amendment.
Its up to the owners, private property rights, the right to refuse service, and the right to not go into those places. You are aware of the risks. Banning freedom is not cool. WHat FREEDOM will you ban next?
I feel as a libertarian you have to believe in the rights of business to decide their operations. Business is property of the owner and as a libertarian you should have strong beliefs in property rights. If you go to a bar you are voluntarily subjecting yourself to a smokey environment, no one forced you enter the building. Public areas such as airports and trainstations don't have the right to subject people to smoke involuntarily. One might aregue that restaurants should not be subject to health inspections under my philosophy. I combat that argument by customers eating in a restaurant have an understood agreement with the business that their food will be safe to eat. Instead of a smoke ban why not allow bars to post a sign on their door saying "WARNING : Entering this property will subject you to hazardous tobacco smoke" That way no one can complain.
Bruce - Many babies have died as a result of secondhand smoke. Therefore i support a law on pregnant mothers smoking as the child has no option but to be subject to toxic fumes.
WHo cares if mothers want to smoke when pregnant. It is thier bodies, they can do what they want with thier bodies. This is the same reason that we allow abortion. I support a woman's right to choose, to smoke or kill the baby while pregnant.
to me the 2nd hand smoke debate puts the cart before the horse. If ciggarettes were made soley from tobacco i dont think there would be much of a problem. I could be wrong. but they put like 400 chemicals in it for some reason. i think thats where the problem is. id like to see a study of health effects of say american spirts compared to newports.
The reason that states and localities have banned smoking in bars and restaurants is that there was never any market demand for non-smoking bars and restaurants. Had there been such demand, I can guarantee the market would have supplied the solution.
The mindset that favors bans on smoking is the same statist mindset that led to alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs, efforts to ban guns, and every other government program. This is not about health - it never was. This is, pure and simple, about power - the power of some people to use the state to enforce their preferences on other people.
I'm 62 yrs. old. I've seen this smoking thing, much like the seat belt issue, progress the same way and they have one thing in common, i.e. ''consensus science", a psuedo science requiring only two things, emotion and a consensus thereafter. I suspect both are a result of a Rockefeller bright idea. Devide and conquer...yes?
I agree with the idea that it is the decision of the individual, and never a decision owed to the fed. Because of this science our Republic, which it is not, has degenerated into a Social Democracy where emotional consensous is everything. A further degeneration will result in "Soft Corporate Facsism" where emotion and consensus means nothing...a vote for Ron Paul would be a vote for the "rule of law" via the Constitution (ideal scene) and would restore our science and true Republic, a game where everybody wins..Semper Fi
How about banning farting in places that serve refried beans? You can't ban everything.
Government bans of cigarette smoking is unnecessary. Non-smokers can simply leave or tell the owner that they won't come back until smoking is stopped. That's more effective than getting the government to do it.
I like a cigar occasionally. I don't like to smoke around folks who don't like it. I won't impose my enjoyment on others who don't. I've smoked a Cuban cigar in Canada. It wasn't that great.
I don't like cigarettes. I rather taste the tobacco, and not the paper. I will put up with the smoke when I go to the bar, because I know that smoke will be there. I make a choice where I want a beer. I can go to either a non-smoking restaurant or the local pub.
In a pub, cigarettes, the dart board, pictures of winning teams, the traffic light, and all the motley customers are part of the atmosphere that I've come to expect. I don't want some self-righteous politician in a state capital over a hundreds of miles away take away how I want to relax at the end of the week.
At least the government is starting to cut back agricultural subsidies on tobacco. It makes no sense to subsidize a poison, then discourage people from using it, then get mad because its tax revenues are decreasing because fewer people are using it. Way too much government.
When I see folks bring a baby to the bar, they're being jack stupid. I'm sure the kid gets even more smoke at home and in the car. Sad, but you're not going to save everyone.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-01-18 00:29:17
Actually, citizens gathered and voted for the smoking bans originally. The right to not smell cigarette stench when eating. The right to not have ashma attacks due to inconsiderate smokers...
These were just two of many considerations voters considered when enacting the bans.
The right of employees (of bars and restaurants, for example) to not have to breath poison.
Posted By: Richard Wicks
Date: 2008-01-18 04:21:18
Does the Constitution allow the Federal government to ban smoking? Have you read the 18th amendment? Why do you think the 18th amendment exists?
Does the fact the 19th amendment exist prevent some towns in Texas from banning the sale of alcohol?
Paul is running for Federal office, and he's never violated the constitution in any of his votes or any of his proposed legislation. Given these facts, do you think Paul would use the Federal government to ban smoking?
Obviously anyone who thinks Paul would support a nationwide ban on smoking doesn't get what he's been and is all about. If you own your own business, you can go after the market you want. If you allow smoking, you'll exclude non-smokers (possibly). The demographics (market) will dictate to anyone what they will allow if they want to survive as a business. It's not rocket science, but a very basic understanding of free market economics and the 10th amendment.. If the community doesn't support smoking establishments, then an advocate of a smoking establishment would do well to run such a business in a market friendly location. DUH!
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-01-18 09:42:58
Will Uncle Sam please come and provide for and protect me PLEASE?
Come on folks, the only ammend. that ever directly took somehting away from the people is also the only one repealed.
the 16th ammend. doesnt count from taking away from the people due to the definition of Income as provided by the US Supreme court. Even though this ammend. needs to be repealed or furthuer defined.
Never give up ANY Freedom to the govt. But most people dont view it as giving up their freedom, only yours.
Oh sea food has mercury in it causing fetal birth defects, people with fifths disease can kill a fetus just by coming in contact with a pregnant woman, your car pumps out 100 packs of cigarettes a day from the tail pipe. Will you use the constitution to ban all of those. Where does it stop. If you have to ask this question you have no idea what Dr. Pauls message is. Find LIBERTY!
REPUBLIC not a Democracy
"The State's purpose is to protect citizens. Cigarette smoke hurts people by giving lung cancer.
It is a no brainer. Ban cigarette in public spaces. Allow it in private spaces."
Yikes! Then why does the benevolent state allow the paper plant down the road to continue to spew noxious chemicals into the air and pollute local watersheds? Why does it allow driving, period?
The state doesn't give a rat's fanny about people as individuals. The people living around the paper plant just have to breathe the crap night and day with no escape. And they have to drink the poison as well.
The state is like a rapist. It is NOT about what is good for the victims; it is all about the POWER and what benefits the state, baby!
With the exception of Fred Thompson (occasionally), Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and your favorite, Dr. Ron Paul (always), few of the candidates seem to take the US Constitution seriously anymore. Our economy and our Constitution are both imploding. This should give us pause or should it? Perhaps we should scrap it and start anew? After all, once in office our elected representative must swear to uphold the US (not foreign) Constitution for all people. This includes even their most hated adversaries. People at the extremes defend it because according to this document they deserve equal protection under the law just like everyone else. I support Ron Paul. I love people of all races, religions and sexualities. I happen to be straight and black if you must know. The Ron Paul supporters I know love their country passionately. They are not racist, sexist pigs with tin foil hats or 911 truthers. They are hard working, decent wonderful people who volunteer in their community and take the time to educate themselves on the issues. They are a threat to the establishment because they think outside the box. Please consider voting for Ron Paul. Thank you for your time.
One would hope that Ron Paul's answer to the author's rhetorical question would be a resounding "NO!"
My parents were smokers and several of my friends smoke; they are all acutely aware of my distaste for it. Our favorite bar is patronized by a lot of smokers and the owner probably hasn't changed the air filters there since he opened the place. I have to take a shower after going out, even for the shortest period, because otherwise my hair smells so awful.
Even given as much as I hate smoking, I don't feel like I have the right to pluck a burning cigarette out of someone's mouth. If I don't have that right, then how can I delegate said right to the state? No one makes me patronize our favorite bar, no one makes me hang out with my smoking friends.
I hate smoking, but I'll fiercely defend a person's right to set the rules on their own turf even if that includes letting everyone in the joint do something that offends me, like lighting up. After all, isn't banning something offensive what got us mixed up in Prohibition and now our inane current drug war? What are we going to do with a national ban-- send around the BATF to inspect everyone's establishments and enforce non-smoking?
I don't smoke, but government's role is not to help me live longer. If a smoker gets lung cancer, yes, that drives up insurance costs, but if he didn't smoke he might get Alzheimers, driving up (you got it) insurance costs. So, you can't argue that the costs of a smoker's illness is higher than the costs of a nonsmoker's illness.
Posted By: Stephen Gordon
Date: 2008-01-20 13:42:55
There is a key difference between typical smoking bans and air pollution.
If I smoke in a bar, I'm not polluting any property except the property of the bar owner, who has chosen to allow the smoking.
With industrial or government air pollution, the pollution impacts a lot of private property and the element of personal choice is disregarded. In other words, millions of homes and businesses are impacted with the industrial pollution and the property owners can't do anything about it.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
