buy unique gifts at Zazzle

May

23

County Smoking Ban Fails, But for Wrong Reasons…

May 23, 2007 |

The Allegheny County smoking ban failed to pass legal muster, but not because it presumed to tell private property owners what legal activities they can and cannot allow on their own property. Rather, it failed because of a disagreement over which government body is allowed to usurp such rights form private property owners. Despite Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael A. Della Vecchia’s denial of the restaurants’ request to strike down the ban, a Commonwealth Court judge ruled that only the PA government can use force to prevent smoking in bars and restaurants thanks to the terms of the PA Clean Air Act.

The law was primarily prevented by two business owners in the city of Pittsburgh who complained not about a loss of property rights, but rather of being forced into a competitive disadvantage against establishments outside of the county not burdened by such a usurpation of rights. Also exempted was the (now up in the air) city slots parlor — the logic for which was so pathetically biased that it was a clear case of political pandering if ever there was.

Obviously we’re no fans of governments taking away property owners’ rights to allow what they please among consenting adults. We’d rather see the overwhelming majority vote with their pocket books to let smoking establishments know that they don’t want smoke when they eat and drink. We’d rather workers not wanting to deal with smoke say no thanks to those smoke filled jobs and choose competing establishments that provide better work environments. That way smokers and private property owners — who, like it or not, are doing what they enjoy — can still have their rights maintained.

As for critics who say this forces workers to choose between their health and jobs, puleeesse. Just open the jobs section of any local paper and tell me the only job these people can find are at bars and restaurants that allow smoking. At most it is a choice of preference. For the same reason many of us don’t choose other jobs becasue of their nature, these services employees are no different.

Why are we such sticklers on this issue? Your editor is, in fact, vehemently anti smoke –I can’t stand it. But I make every effort to tell management that I will not patronize their eatery, etc. again, and will always remind friends of their insufferable smoke environment. Then, I move on. That’s because I think, on principle, we are growing far too comfortable usurping private property rights for convenience in appeasing the collective. Its smoking this time, but there are thousands of other examples where we do the same thing.

Some question if I’m against the health inspector given that invovles government intrusion. To that I say, sure — what makes the health inspector so special and less impervious to half assed work ethic or corruption than the private sector? We have private ratings agencies in so many other areas of quality control in the United States — and even globally — that certify quality of things. Government health inspectors merely monopolize the trade and we get results like this Taco Bell in NYC that had passed its inspection earlier in the week:

Now, am I against public heal inspectors worried about rat infestations? Absolutely not — that is a legitimate health threat to not just the patrons, but the entire neighborhood. Rats spread disease not just a property owner who is rat indifferent, but for his neighbors as well.

The government smell test should be regarding “consent or not”. In this case, neighbors don’t consent to you allowing your property to serve as a breeding ground that leads to a broader infestation problem. Unlike smoking, which is contained with a property, rats are a different story.

Finally, as for the laughable Casino exemption, that’s the biggest joke. If government has any right to regulate smoking, it is with property that is in some way or another an extension of taxpayer policy or government monopoly. In a free country, folks would have a choice of smoking and non smoking casinos, but the government only allows its own chosen establishment to be the local monopoly. Hence, anyone wanting to play slots is left with the dilemma of one choice. No smoking? Knock yourself out. The same holds true for tax payer built and subsidized structures. While I’m no fan of building those in the first place, the collective must suffer the whims of the collective — and if the collective wants no smoking, so be it.


Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind