TOBACCO ROAD TO FREEDOM
The government shouldn�t be setting the smoking policy for privately owned establishments
BY CHUCK MUTH
 |
|
Chuck Muth is president and CEO of Citizen Outreach. He is a professional political consultant. Find more about him and read more of his work at www.chuckmuth.com.
Other stories by Chuck Muth
|
What is the proper role of government? For the left, that�s easy: Everything. For the right, things are much more complicated. A recent conversation with a conservative friend with regard to the government-imposed bans on smoking in privately owned bars and taverns served as evidence. According to my Southern Nevada friend, this is a perfectly appropriate use of the power of government because people who smoke are driving up his health-insurance rates. But there are at least two glaring flaws in this argument.
First, banning people from smoking in taverns doesn�t stop them from smoking. They just step outside and light up. If you�re going to use government to ban smoking for health-insurance reasons, then you need to ban it completely, not just in bars.
Second, there is no constitutional right to patronize another person�s private business. Smoking bans should be a property-rights issue, not a health-care issue, and the government shouldn�t be setting the smoking policy for privately owned establishments. People who don�t like being in barrooms full of smoke can avoid them simply by avoiding barrooms. This isn�t exactly rocket science.
Government-enforced smoking bans are easy to support because smoking, to the majority of the population, is such an unpopular and distasteful habit. And in a democracy, the majority can vote to do anything � which is why our Founders didn�t establish a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. For if the majority has the power to ban smoking under the argument that it�s a risky behavior that costs society money via higher insurance rates, then we�re just a slippery slope away from banning sky diving, skiing, mountain climbing or even taking a hike through the woods to Grandma�s house lest a big, bad wolf attack you and the rest of us have to pay your hospital bill.
If the objective is to bring health-care costs down, the best way to achieve that goal � and here�s a real inconvenient truth � is for Americans to start living healthier lives.
This means getting up off your lard-butt and exercising vigorously every day. This means putting down the potato chips and picking up the celery sticks. This means peas, not pizza. Broccoli, not brownies. If everybody practiced health this way, there�s no question whatsoever that Americans� health would improve dramatically and health-care costs would drop precipitously.
But is it the proper role of government to mandate that each and every one of us live a healthier life? Is it appropriate for the government to require you to do 15 minutes of calisthenics every morning? If you answer �yes,� you�re part of the problem and are helping sow the seeds of our national demise.
Taking a principled stand in defense of private business owners setting their own smoking policy in the face of such widespread public opposition to smoking itself is what separates the men from the boys and true conservatives from the fair-weathered kind.
Choose wisely, folks. The fate of a nation could depend on your decision. Now about those mandatory seatbelt laws�
FREE SHIPPING TO U.S.A.
anywhere else add 9 dollars.
