The author of the letter in the OP, Mr. Laprade (a.k.a snowbird) seems to be making a career of writing to various newspapers and politicians about the horrifying evils of smoking bans.
I’ve commented at length on this issue in a couple of recent Pit threads, including the bizarre suggestions that bar and restaurant workers can just find another job if they don’t like smoke (an argument that’s never succeeded in any other industry with associated, preventable hazards), the much-ignored science demonstrating linkage between secondhand smoke and numerous serious non-cancerous conditions, and the evidence showing a lack of business drop-off after bans are initiated.
So I’ll just bring up this oddity - if smokers are so furious about the “tyranny of the majority” in instituting bans, why do we never hear them gripe about the fact that restaurants with smoking and non-smoking areas give at least half the space (and often more) to smokers, when smokers make up considerably less than half of the patrons? Where ae the outraged letters to the editor on this one?
To me it’s a matter of liberty. If the owner of a restaurant wants to permit smoking, he should be allowed to do so. If people want to work for him, they should be allowed to do so. If people don’t want to patronize it because of the smoke, they should be allowed to do so. It’s a matter of freedom.
Smoking ban proponents, however, seem to feel that since the majority of people who go to bars don’t agree with them that they should force bar owners and customers to bow to their wishes by enacting legislation. It’s ridiculous. If you don’t like to smoke or work near smoke, don’t patronize or work in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. It’s pretty simple. Don’t try to force others to bow to your choices, however.
Hey, the OP titled this thread “Smoking bans are the real threat to Democracy.” I argue that, on the contrary, smoking bans are the outcome of the democratic process. Yes, the majority can be wrong. Sometimes grievously so. In that case, the tide of public opinion brings pressure on legislators to change laws.
The demarcation between personal rights and respect for the rights of others is one that has been reevaluated many times. That suggests it is not a black-white boundary, but one subject to interpretation. Whose interpretation should prevail? We say, the one most people in the community think is right.
I thought the idea of banning smoking in bars/restaurants was a bad idea when Lexington did it (and if you can’t smoke in Kentucky, where can you smoke?) and I still think it is to some degree. I’ve heard all the arguments about it being a public safety issue just like keeping kitchens sanitary, but I still think that if you’re going to a bar, you should accept that people will be smoking.
Business owner may see a voluntary smoking ban as change in status quo that can only hurt their business. This has come up in communities around Phoenix where bar and restaurant owners complained that a smoking ban would send customers to neighboring communities with no ban.
