Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Where there's smoke, there's a nanny-stater....

The Smoking Ban debate is heating up in Wayne County again. Proponents continually hammer the point that if smoking is unhealthy, it should also be illegal. And many seem to have a hard time finding the distinction between public and private.

I wrote this a couple of years ago. It explains why I believe government enforced smoking bans on private property are wrong. BTW, I don't smoke, and we don't allow smoking in our home or business....

The recent uproar over certain pharmacists’ refusal to provide “morning-after” birth control pills due to moral objections showcases the misconception of rights that many people have. Does a pharmacist have the right to refuse to sell a product he or she finds morally objectionable, or does a woman have the right to purchase a drug that the FDA has approved for sale? The answer to both questions is yes.

Oddly enough, many of our elected officials seem unable to grasp the concept of rights. In California, legislators are drafting legislation that would require pharmacists to provide any lawful drug, regardless of their moral or religious beliefs. Apparently they believe they can give someone the right to force someone else to do something that person finds objectionable. At the same time, legislators in Washington are drafting legislation that would require employers to make allowances for their employee’s religious beliefs. Apparently they believe they can give an employee ( perhaps a pharmacist), the right to refuse their employer’s orders, (perhaps an order to sell birth control pills), without a fear of repercussion, so long as the refusal is made on religious grounds. So what happens next? Does the pharmacist go to jail for not providing the drug, or does the pharmacy owner go to jail for forcing him to make the sale or firing him for not making the sale?

Maybe the solution lies in the realization that government cannot grant rights, that every person in the world is born with the same natural rights, regardless of the type of government they live under.

Every person has the right to purchase what someone else wishes to sell. If your pharmacist decides he will sell Bayer Aspirin but not Tylenol, you have the right to get mad, you have the right to walk out the door and find a pharmacist that sells Tylenol. You don’t have the right to force the offending pharmacist to sell Tylenol.

When an employee goes to work for an employer, they come to an agreement. The employee agrees to perform a service in return for benefits. The employer agrees to provide benefits in return for services provided. When they can no longer agree on services and benefits, they have the right to part ways in search of other employers and employees. This is our system of free enterprise and contract law. It works well with minimum government intrusion. Government has no reason to step in until someone tries to forcibly prevent you from going to another pharmacy, or until an employer defrauds an employee, or until an employee defrauds an employer.

Your rights cannot conflict with someone else’s rights. If something you decide to do requires or leads to the initiation of force against another person, then it isn’t a right.

Yes, you have the right to join with any number of people and pool your resources for your retirement. No, you don’t have the right to force someone to join your group.

Yes, you have the right defend yourself against violence. No, you don’t have the right to initiate violence.

Yes, you have the right to donate to any cause or charity you choose. No, you don’t have the right to force anybody else to donate.

Yes, you have the right to seek an education. No, you don’t have the right to take someone’s home if they decide they don’t want to pay for your education.

Yes, you have the right to own and control your property. No you don’t have the right to control someone else’s property.

Yes, you have the right to prevent people from smoking on your property. No, you don’t have the right to prevent people from smoking on their property.

Rights belong to individuals. While every person in a group has rights, belonging to a group does not give you more rights than a single person.

This group of people that is our government needs to realize they cannot grant or take away our rights. They can only protect those rights, or prevent us from practicing them. I’d prefer a government that protects them.


Blogger said...

The prevailing mindset is that perceived badness is reason enough to make a behavior unlawful.

If that were true, both Democrats and Republicans should be outlawed.

11:45 AM  
Blogger Rex Bell said...

Hi J.A.,
I think that's the point. The legislature getting involved in something it shouldn't. Trying to grant rights to specific people while trying to deny rights of others, instead of protecting everyone's rights.

6:39 PM  
Blogger Bob G. said...

While I am a smoker (and yet have the decency to respect others around me in specific venues), I don't feel this new "ban" is the alpha-omega of secondhand smoke...

I don't see ANY legislation regarding diesel fumes or oil-laced emissions from various other vehcles. Nor do I see adequate enforcement on NOISE ordinances.

Secondhand noise (from train horns, boomcars, and unmufflered motorcycles) present as many (albeit dirrerent) health risks as smoke, and yet no one wishes to get "down and dirty" with this in our city (Fort wayne). Even the EPA closed that divison back in 1979, and has not reopened it.

We're usually told (by the police even) that much of this is unenforceable.

ANY governemnt ban (on things such this) on private property is not to be allowed...period.

We are all born with the same natural rights, I'll grant you that, but when people prove time and again to become irresponsible, and are not held accountable for their actions or choices, someone has to step in.

That can become quite a catch-22.

How can you legislate behavior? Or can you? Should You?
That becomes the big question.


9:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home