Were the smoking and non-smoking sections required by law, though? They were here in California. Of course they didn't work very well. I'm glad they went to full non-smoking, because smoke is disgusting, and the more expensive the meal, the less I want it ruined by smoke drifting in from other tables. I think the police would be called if someone insisted on spraying my table with pesticides while I was eating, and yet many of the contaminants in cigarettes are just as toxic (actually, aren't some of them found in pesticides?).
Anyway, I think government is getting too invasive in many ways- but the smoking debate involves two competing rights, the right to have clean air to breathe, and the right to foul the air for your own pleasure. I think it is in areas where two rights compete that government is most needed, because those are the areas that are like assault. Abortion is another area where there are competing individual rights- and government probably has a place figuring out whose rights should be preeminent. At the moment we allow the mother's right to choose to trump the zygotes right to mature, but the government could tomorrow change its mind and change the playing field.
I think the public good thing is much iffier- at least where you have CLEAR rights (my right to breathe clean air unfouled by someone else, a smoker's right to smoke)- you can see how they interact. Those "public good" arguments are a lot more intangible, imo, and a lot more susceptible to local corruption and stupidity. JMO of course.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I appreciate it. |
