April 2007
Voter preference is irrelevant in smoking ban issue
That 65% of Virgina voters would prefer a public ban on smoking is not relevant to the issue the Virginia House faced this week - Governor Kaine’s proposed comprehensive smoking ban.
Just as they did yesterday, our representatives have in the past decided again and again that a smoking ban is not right for Virgina. These representatives are supposedly acting in concert with the beliefs of the people they are representing. As such, our lawmakers have decided that their body of constituents do not want a ban, or that too many would consider a ban unjust. Ultimately, then, a poll is not relevant on issues such as this since representation is in effect, and representation speaks louder than voter appeals. If our representatives really believed the voters wanted a smoking ban, they would enact one or otherwise be subject to a backlash during the next election. Slavery was not repealed because a majority of Americans opposed the practice, it was abolished because Lincoln and other members of Congress decided it was the right time to do so.
The bigger problem at hand is the assumption that if there is a clear majority on an issue then it is the correct, just, and moral decision to make, with no consideration of the repercussions of injustice on the other end. In other words, proposing these poll figures also presupposes the assumption that smoking bans are completely just, if only for the reason that the majority of voters believes so. Concurrently, an environment without smoking bans in effect is unjust.
This is a depraved stance, and is only a continuation of the redundant rhetoric of ban advocates. They use the poll in an attempt to prove that they are irrevocably right, when in fact their stance is one-sided and unilateral. As it exists in Virginia right now, there is a duality of establishments. That is to say, patrons may choose to go to a smoking or a non-smoking restaurant or bar (choice is especially prevalent in the Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Charlotte areas). Ban advocates would have our society be unipolar. They would take away the liberty of choice that patrons and property owners at this moment retain. They would essentially have our government, acting as our guardian nanny who knows what is better for us than we do, decide that there should be no choice at all; that there should be only one option. Right now approximately 20% of the population smokes tobacco, but 100% of the population has the choice of patronizing either smoking or non-smoking establishments. If Governor Kaine’s measure were adopted, that figure would go from 100% to zero.
Chinese government proposes smoking ban
Smoking bans aren’t just gaining momentum in the West. China is the world’s largest tobacco producer as well as home to 350 million smokers, making it the world’s largest tobacco consumer as well. As reported today by NPR (”China’s Smokers Confront Changing Culture“), a government-enacted ban is gaining momentum after a recent proposal to make Beijing smoke-free by the commencement of next year’s Summer Olympics.
I’m not familiar with Chinese governmental policies, but as far as I know there is no history of liberties like private property for the common people to argue against. It is still a Communist nation, aster all, even if China is called the “capitalist miracle”. If policies are enacted at the whim of the politburo, what tools do the common people retain with which to defend themselves?