Defending Nannystatism

Because this issue is not going anyway anytime soon, (as discussed in yesterday's Conservative Refuge Podcast) County Executive John Leopold penned a guest column in this morning's Maryland Gazette defending his proposed smoking ban. His logic is...curious.

Five years ago, I was lying in a hospital bed recovering from surgery to remove melanoma from my abdomen. I had seen so many others suffer from various other forms of cancer. I resolved then that I would do everything I could as an elected official to fight this terrible disease and improve opportunities for early cancer detection.

While that may be true and unfortunate, melanoma is a type of skin cancer that is not caused by smoking. It is caused by exposure to UV rays. The type of UV rays that are strong near the Tropic of Cancer and from campaigning outdoors extensively without proper protection...

Now as county executive, it is my responsibility to push the debate forward and reduce exposure of non-smokers and children to secondhand smoke. Such exposure causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, bronchitis, coronary heart disease, lung cancer and numerous other ailments.

No, as County Executive his responsibility is to ensure that the county government works efficiently and at reduced cost. Given Leopold's call for "efficiencies" in county government, I wonder what resources he plans to use to lobby and then ultimately enforce this proposal.

He goes on to cite some scientific data noting that cigarette smoke is disgusting and unhealthy (there at least we agree), then he goes on:

and we certainly will not be the first jurisdiction to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. As of last spring, 2,216 cities and counties had some sort of smoking restriction in place, including 292 affecting restaurants and 215 affecting bars.

Five counties in Maryland, including Montgomery, Howard, Prince George's, Charles and Talbot already have various bans, and Washington, D.C. cut off smoking in restaurant bars and nightclubs this month. It is not a question of whether every jurisdiction will follow suit, but when.

Because if everybody is doing it, why shouldn't we?

To smokers who feel they have a right to light up in bars and restaurants, I ask if non-smokers and children have a right to enter public places without being exposed to carcinogens.

Except the proposed smoking ban would outlaw smoking on private property; smoking is generally already banned on public property and I doubt if you are going to find much of a groundswell to support it on public property. But what right does John Leopold have to determine that private business owners should be required to forbid certain legal activities in their establishments? And, once again, customers can vote with their feet; particularly ones who have children.

It should be noted that patrons can speak with their feet and choose not to frequent smoke-filled bars and restaurants. Waitresses and bartenders, however, who are just trying to make a living, are trapped in a workplace environment of thick smoke.

It is stunning to find that Leopold thinks so lowly of the intelligence of waitresses and bartenders that they cannot comprehend what they do for a living. Additionally, these employees can also choose to vote with their feet and choose to work in a smoke-free establishment. Nobody is holding a gun to their head forcing them to work in an establishment that permits smoking.

Once again, Leopold uses curious logic to try and outlaw a legal activity. I hope that this sort of activist government, the kind we expect from Democratic politicians instead of Republicans, is not a trend during his term. It makes me wonder what other legal activities Leopold wishes to ban in Anne Arundel County...