|
The wrong smoke screen
The Washington Times
Tue, Mar 31 1998
When we were young men, the fate of the Free World was
threatened by aggressive dictators. Our country was united by a
common goal of survival.
Lacking such galvanizing external threats, today we are focused
on all manner of issues that often undercut the freedoms we fought
to preserve. Frivolous lawsuits range from sexual harassment to
spilled coffee. Legitimate adult choices that were acceptable only
a few years ago are choked off by a growing industry of culture
mechanics.
Our "peace dividend" is fractured by the
we-know-what's-best-for-you crowd. On Jan. 1, California enacted
the nation's first statewide ban on smoking in bars. As
nonsmokers, we are not inconvenienced by this charge. Selfishly, we
might welcome it. It is our preference that children be
discouraged from smoking and that adults give first priority to the
issue of their own health. We also favor Congress adopting the
resolution agreed to by the state attorneys general and the tobacco
companies, which would generate funding to help persuade young
people not to smoke.
On the other hand, California's ban has much more to do with
stifling choice than stopping smoking. Iran tried a similar ban in
1996. Its law was declared unconstitutional. The contrast is
amazing.
Even cigar bars, separated from other parts of food and
beverage service, have been told to close. These bars may turn out
to be a passing fad, but we should let the adult employee and
consumer markets decide their fate. Where is the logic when our
civil laws accommodate bungee-jumping and sky-diving as "extreme
entertainment," but smoking venues are legislated out of existence
as being too dangerous.
Our fear is simple: What next?
It might be health advocates dictating which dishes can be
offered on menus. Recently, Kelly Brownell, director of the Yale
Center for Eating and Weight Disorders, proposed taxing fatty foods
to discourage their consumption. Incredibly, this idea was touted
by U.S. News & World Report as one of its 16 "smart ideas to fix
the world."
Stopping public smoking can be viewed on one level as simply a
health issue. But it has triggered a look into the future. Are
those with the loudest megaphones entitled to decide which options
are available to the rest of us?
In the name of public health, some groups are advocating
legislation to ban fragrances in public. They have made headway
with the city of San Francisco, where city supervisors have passed
a "sustainability plan" urging people to stop wearing cologne.
Surveillance cameras were planned for a Culver City classroom to
protect a teacher who claims students "assault" her by spraying
perfumes. This comes after the school system spent $20,000 trying
to accommodate this teacher's complaint. Can a statewide scent ban
be far away? What enforcement measures would come with that ban?
When our generation fought to maintain our freedom, we could
never have imagined how those fights would continue. Today's
threatening warriors are domestic and seem to have endless amounts
of time to agitate for their positions. The Internet and the media
are their weapons of choice. Some of their causes are worthwhile.
But in others, good intentions have crossed the bounds of common
sense and personal freedom.
Why would a liberal former U.S. senator and a conservative
businessman agree on this issue? Because common sense is not a
political or partisan point of view. And we remember when America
had more important things to worry about.
George McGovern was the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee.
Norman E. Brinker is chairman of Brinker International, a
restaurant conglomerate
(Copyright 1998)
_____via IntellX_____
Copyright 1998, The Washington Times. All rights reserved.
Republication and redistribution of The Washington Times content is expressly prohibited
without the prior written consent of The Washington Times.
The Washington Times shall not be liable for errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
| 
