(Or: the concequences of the lack of vision)
November 30th, 1996
Vancouver's antismoking by-law comes into effect at midnight of November 30th. This is the last
day you have the choice to light up in a restaurant.
Effective tomorrow, your choice will be taken away. In the name of health. In the name of
protecting the children. In the name of the state protecting you from yourself.
Never mind what you feel. Never mind if you agree. In the name of health and protection, your
business choice and your personal choice is gone.
Do they care if there are alternatives that can accommodate everyone, while respecting the
wishes and needs of all? No.
Do they care that there is ample scientific evidence that secondhand smoking is not dangerous,
providing that there is a minimum of air ventilation? No.
Do they care about the economic consequences of their political decisions? Of course not, it is
the money of the restaurant owners, and the enjoyment of the patrons, not theirs.
Like a steam roller, the City Council goes forward with its assault on personal liberties and
businesses with total disregard for any minority. They know what is right, and what is good for
you, and it will be imposed by force, like it or not.
We can expect the media showing nine satisfied patrons out of ten, according to the unwritten
manual of political correctness, and ratings.
So far, the opposition to the smoking ban has been scattered and just verbal, as enforcement of
the ban was still in the future. Now that future has become "today".
The only organized opposition -- The Restaurant and Food Service Association of B.C. and The
Yukon -- did not really care about the removal of the freedom of choice (the basis of liberty). All
they cared for was a "level plain field" with the pubs, in which for a short while longer smoking
is still allowed. If the smoking ban had been total, they would probably have been totally content, in the belief that the ultimate state prohibition of smoking is inevitable.
So they challenged the by-law in court and lost, even though they are appealing the ruling.
In the meantime, phrases such as "personal liberty", "accommodation", "no state interference", or "what's next in the
name of health and protection?" did not cross the lips of either state, or opposition.
So closed is the vision of the consequences of this state interference, nobody seems to see that this
opens the doors to all kinds of government intrusion in the affairs of citizens in the name of some
righteous cause. So busy we are to put out the little fires, the burning of the forest is neglected.
Unless the problem of government's regulating interference in the affairs of the citizens is
addressed at the root, and a solid precedent of opposition is set (the smoking issue would be a
good one), it will continue to the bitter end, and it will grow bigger, uglier, and more intrusive
every day.
The fundamental right of choice of the citizen as to what to do with his body, business or
behaviour is under attack by a state run by demagogues, doctors, and "administrators". THIS is
the fundamental problem to eliminate, not just the smoking issue on its own right.
For as long as we mumble and fumble, and we do nothing but knuckle under every time the state
mentions the words "law" and "regulation", for as long as we cherish the government's words and
propaganda as gospel truth, for as long as we administer our liberties by proxy, and we don't care
about the consequences of restrictions simply because "that" particular rule does not concern us
personally, we'll deserve every ounce of what we get. Nobody will "protect" us from it, but
ourselves.
Protecting liberty sometimes costs a high price.
Whether we agree or not with the purpose of a law or regulation, whether it concerns us or not,
assaults on freedom must be fought to preserve what really concerns us.
As a Canadian maybe no longer so proud to be one, but still loving this country, I found my pride
again by stating that for the first time I will break the law on smoking at any opportunity, and I
will disobey Vancouver' by-law because it is an intrusion in my life in which the state has no
business.
To protect what I am. To protect my liberty. To preserve my country.
|