| Smoking bans: Personal Rights vs. Property Rights? |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Thursday, 17 November 2005 | |
|
Many people have compared smoking bans to the fight for gun rights. Both issues seem to pit personal rights against the rights of property owners when it comes to controlling activites on private property. As Ohio law stands, any property owner may make the decision to ban firearms by putting up a visible "no guns" sign (in contrast, there are some states where such signs carry no weight). The gun grabbers would like to see mandatory bans on firearms in all public places, removing the right to choose from business owners and patrons alike. The same underlying argument can be applied to the recent bans on smoking in public places, and the debate can be just as heated. (Click 'READ MORE' to continue...) In the last election, the cities of Grandview Heights and Gahanna passed bans on smoking in all indoor public facilities. They join Bexley, Columbus, Dublin, Grove City, Hilliard, New Albany, Upper Arlington, Westerville, and Worthington in removing the right to choose from private business owners. In a hauntingly familiar argument, proponents of the ban claim that it is a public health issue... that the dangers of second hand smoke far outweigh the rights of business owners to decide for themselves whether or not to ban smoking. Opponents of the bans say that the research is flawed, and that second hand smoke actually poses no danger to the general public. They also remind that citizens have the right to choose whether or not to patronize establishments that allow smoking if they do not wish to be exposed to it. We invite you to visit our forums and hear arguments from both sides before making up your mind whether or not the right to choose should be legislated away. Links of interest: OhioCCW Forums debate Grandview, Gahanna soon to join cities with smoking bans Secondhand Smoke and Your Family PASSIVE SMOKE: "Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it's the dose that makes the poison" |