It's For Your Own Good!

The linked video is the title song from the film "Thank You For Smoking."  I really like the song and that's why it's there.  I'd like to discuss the argument surrounding smoking bans especially in Kentucky for two reasons: I actually know the laws there and it is the last place the conversation is still being held.  Most states have either already placed bans in effect or it is completely out of the question.

Kentucky got a failing grade on its tobacco policies by the American Lung Association.  This has led to people suggesting a higher cigarette tax, a tighter smoking ban in some places, or a full statewide ban.  The advocates of these practices point to studies showing that smoking bans are saving lives and improving living situations, even in prisons, as proof that they are correct.  I can not argue that smoking is bad for a person's health.  I lost my grandmother to lung cancer and my father has been allergic to smoke all my life.  I am not blind to the studies that have shown how much better people's lives are because there isn't any smoke in the air around them.  Kentucky has one of the highest rates of cancer in the nation and many blame the low cigarette taxes promoting smoking as a leading cause.  In fact, the designee for the Secretary of Health and Human Services is an anti-smoking advocate.

Wow, Leviathan, you pretty much nipped smoking in the bud didn't you?  I guess so.  There's only one problem.  These bans aren't being enforced.  In fact, some disputers of the law are downright rebellious.  In most conversations about smoking bans right now I would point out that caffiene and alcohol are also bad for a person's health but they are legal.  Then my opponent points out that they don't harm others like second- and now third-hand smoke.  I have to admit, harming others around you for the sake of your own addiction is downright rude.  In fact, in other cases of such activity, it's downright illegal.  I keep ripping holes into the legality of smoking aren't I?  What's the answer then?  Stricter laws to enforce tougher penalties when the cops feel like enforcing them?

Well I have two answers.  The first is one of my old campaign strategies: let individual business owners decide.  This fallback on free market economics is sure to settle the problem once and for all.  If we let individual owners decide whether or not to allow smoking, then consumers and employees can decide if they want to accept the risks of the environment and shop/work there.  If the market doesn't like smoke in the same environment as the good or service, they'll stop shopping there and the business will either change its policies or go out of business.  With proper signs marking smoking or not smoking near entryways, consumers will be able to decide for themselves.  All without the help of the government.  Another option is to completely ban smoking outside of private areas: specifically the home and the car.  This option uses strong-arm government control, and with proper enforcement would force people to curb their addiction to tobacco to stay active members of society.  There was a map that showed that the only states to get failing grades from the ALA were the former Confederate states and Kentucky.  With the passing of the increased cigarette taxes, Kentucky and Tennessee would get D's.  Surely we don't have any reason to fear this selection of states being upset at the federal government exercising authority not given to it in the Constitution, right?

It seems pretty much inevitable that the second option I proposed will be the one that is eventually adopted.  I hope that everyone is proud of how they stomp on the rights of business owners.  Just remember that as long as the government says they are acting on your behalf, you don't have to make any decisions for yourself.  Surely you don't have any other rights that can be removed because they aren't safe.  Say, you don't own a gun do you?  Studies show...