Smoke and Mirrors

It would seem to me that a local and/or State mandate to ban smoking in bars, restaurants, parks, et al. would in turn be enough to clear the air to the extent that said residents’ and government representatives’ judgment would cease to be clouded. However, it’s become quite apparent that in specific regard, such mandates are failing miserably.

While growing in popularity amongst a flurry of self proclaimed entitlists, smoking bans seek to establish themselves upon the notion of better health for both the individual as well as the healthcare industry. Those in favor of implementing such smoking bans consistently tout the effects and dangers of second hand smoke as they make a proclamation that air which is free from carbon monoxide, carcinogens, and the rank scent of tobacco is their “right” to breathe. For me, and a great many others, there of course exists an enormous sense of questionability as to the validity of these and similar self proclaimed “rights”. Personally, I see them more as wants and desires than I do as “rights”. However, similar “rights” have been proclaimed by other self proclaimed entitlists, from demands of citizenship amongst illegal immigrants, to the “right” to free healthcare, and then to an apparent “right” to provoke and incite fear and terror, under the guise of prayer, in passengers and personnel on an airplane. America is the land of the free, not the land of the entitled. And so, I’ve got news for all you self proclaimed entitlists, your rights end where mine begin.

Let us say for the sake of argument that I rent an apartment in a building with a neighbor who so happens to be a culinary student. On one particular Saturday, let’s assume that this neighbor makes a seafood bisque soup in his/her apartment and it stinks up the entire floor of my building. Now, let’s further assume that I have an overall distaste for all things from the sea. According to the falsity by our self proclaimed entitlists, I might have a legitimate grievance in that my right to breathe air which is not so closely related to fisherman’s wharf has been compromised in my neighbor’s pursuit of seafood satisfaction. Similarly, should I happen to take a walk around one of Minnesota’s many lakes and come across an obese individual wearing spandex, that is maybe two sizes too small, do I have a “right” to not be subjected to such an unwarranted display of the human form? The answer to both of these ridiculously self proclaimed entitlements would of course be no. Now, I am quite prepared for any self proclaimed entitlist’s rebuttal, which of course would cite that in neither instance is my health being jeopardized. Dismissing that obesity and spandex are not as much in tandem as fish and chips, I’ll take the high road and digress that in fact my health is not being jeopardized but rather I’ve merely fallen victim to a matter of inconvenience.

So, I beg of the entitlist community, do pray tell how stepping foot into an establishment where the patrons are enshrined in tobacco bliss is anything short of a matter of inconvenience to you? Certainly you’re not being cattle prodded into a steak house (although that would be strangely ironic to say the least) and forced to eat a New York strip or filet mignon while engulfed in a sea of second hand smoke. You could certainly stay home and fire up the grill, forego the 20% gratuity, and have an equally enjoyable experience. But for the self proclaimed entitlist crowd, such a notion is always met with stiff opposition. Why, I’ve routinely heard such entitlists proclaim their displeasure for smokers who feel entitled to “smoke wherever they damn well choose”. Last I checked, tobacco was still legal (at least for now). But, the claim by the entitlists grossly ignores that smokers in fact do not smoke wherever they so choose which explains why the little ashtray in the arm of my airline seat is always filled with chewed up gum rather than cigarette butts. And so, the battle of smoker vs. non-smoker rages. Though for me, the issue of smoking bans has less to do with tobacco junkies vs. self proclaimed entitlists. I admit to enjoying the benefits of a smoke-free environment as much as anyone. But unlike the self proclaimed entitlists, I’m not just looking out for my own self interests.

What is at issue, and ends up being overlooked in the ongoing debate, is private property and private ownership vs. Big Government. That the role of Government has now stretched itself to the point where they’re banning tobacco use in a privately owned business, banning the use of trans-fat, and considering (in the U.K.) a proposal that clothing manufacturers be required to sew obesity help line #’s into the tags of clothing for the overweight (ironic considering that these very governmental measures are a smoke and mirrors attempt to sew Big Government into the very fabric of our daily lives) ought to be viewed as gross injustices and abuses of power (and here I thought it was strictly Bush and his cronies who were trampling upon Civil Liberties and Rights). George Orwell was right, Big Brother lives today.

But, what’s even more nefarious is the fact that local governments are now subsidizing the very businesses affected by the smoking bans. Such subsidies are aimed towards building outdoor smoking facilities to help local business owners sustain revenues that have been lost since the smoking ban was put in place. That government doth taketh away then doth giveth is one more act whereby the bricks of socialism are being laid. Government would love none other than to have local businesses feeding at the trough; another calculated political attempt to buy votes. So consumed with saving us from ourselves, Government fails miserably to protect us from the very real threats we face.

And so, in closing, I declare outright. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em and snuff out Big Government in the process.