`Tis Truly the Season for Miracles

Or at least very odd occurrences. While not exactly pigs flying or the Vikings finally winning a Super Bowl, there was the very odd spectacle this week of a Republican (Minnesota) state legislator being wrong, while the Minnesota Welfare Rights Coalition was right. At issue was state representative Marty Seifert's bizarre and dreadfully wrongheaded proposal that that "welfare recipients should be fined for smoking because the habit increases the state's health costs." (This is also a great argument against government-run healthcare, by the way -- if the government is paying for your care, it will take a much greater say over how you live your life.)

In this case, the Welfare Rights Coalition [Digressive sidebar: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT" TO WELFARE! Even the name of this organization is oxymoronic, as well as just plain moronic. But like a blind squirrel, they finally found a nut. Unfortunately, a Republican nut, but clearly a nut nonetheless. Enough bad puns, end sidebar.] was actually correct in fighting the efforts of Representative Seifert, though not clearly for the right reasons. The fact of the matter is that, while it's certainly possible to quit smoking (40 -- or is it closer to 50 now? -- million Americans have done so), it is also very difficult, and can be done only with a great deal of personal commitment, which is to say that the smoker has to really really want to quit, on the inside, in order to be successful. It cannot be forced or coerced by the heavy hand of government. In fact, efforts to do so are likely to be counterproductive, as they compel a stance of resistance.

According to the news report, "Seifert would test smokers on welfare periodically to verify that they've quit" -- can you say violation of civil liberties? And further, that "he'd also like to impose sanctions for gambling and buying alcohol, but said it's too difficult to test for compliance." I like gambling, because it's the only effective way to tax stupidity. And I like booze because, well, I like booze. And it offers a brief escape from reality, and those on welfare can probably use this from time to time.

In other words, Seifert is being class bigot and a classic elitist -- if you don't live your life according to his dictates, then he wants to punish you for that. More specifically, he wants to use the goverment to punish you for that.

As far as welfare, its goal should be to provide temporary help for those down on their luck, and help them return as quickly as possible to a job and self-sufficiency. And once they have a job, the government should stay the heck out of their workplaces in terms of smoking policy (or any other excessive, intrusive regulation) -- that's up to the employer, the entrepreneur who risked his or her own money to launch a business and help grow our economy.

Representative Seifert, please -- leave the assaults on personal and economic freedom to the liberal, socialist, class-bigoted, elitist Democrats who are the experts at this. You are a Republican -- we're the ones who are supposed to be on the side on freedom and the rights of the individual and private businesses against the jackboot of government intervention and intrusion. If you've forgotten that, please switch parties, we don't want you. When you make the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union look like they are on the side of the angels, you've really screwed up.

- posted by Tom Pick @ 2:12 PM

 
Smoking Bans: Time to Tell the Government to Butt Out

On January 1, 2005, the latest example of exessive intrusion of the government into the rights of private businesses and citizens will take effect in Bloomington, Minnesota -- a city-wide smoking ban. Think this is just a matter of getting rid of that nasty, smelly cigarette smoke in bars and restaurants? Wrong -- this is about more, much more. It is about how we allow ourselves to be governed. Will we stand idly by as the government encroaches more and more on our rights, like the probverbial frog in the pot of water slowly brought to the boiling point? Or will we firmly (figuaratively) slap the fingers of our elected representatives when they over-reach, putting them back in their proper place as servants -- not masters -- of those they represent?

There is no medical justification for such a ban. The largest study ever conducted on the issue, by the World Health Organization (hardly a tobacco industry front group), concluded that "while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency even released its own, deeply-flawed, study, proporting to demonstrate the risks of second-hand smoke, but the report was so deeply flawed that it was later thrown out in court.

Such bans can't be justified on a public interest basis either. If there were such a strong demand for smoke-free bars and restaurants, more bars and restaurants would voluntarily go smoke-free. If fact, bars realize that 1) smokers are some of their best customers, and 2) there are non-smokers who will occasionally light up when they are drinking. Most restaurant owners have found that they can maximize their own business by accomodating both smokers and non-smokers, e.g. with separate eating areas or smoking permitted only in a bar area. In other words, the free market can deal, quite well, with the preferences of various individuals and groups.

In fact, if exposure to smoke were the real issue, there would no need for banning smoking in separately-ventilated smoking areas within buildings or within X number of feet of doorways or "anywhere on the property" as some establishments have been forced to implement, or even in (outdoor) public parks. The issue isn't about exposure or health, it is about control and bigotry.

This is a blatant grab for power by people who, quite frankly, want to control your life. They are the ideological descendants of the supporters of Jim Crow laws, of those who forced Jews to wear the Star of David, of those who posted "no dogs or Irish allowed" signs. They aren't allowed to hate you anymore for your skin color, religion or ancestry, so now they hate you for more politically correct reasons -- you smoke, you drink, you eat the wrong things, you don't exercise enough or properly, whatever. They are bigots of the worst sort, wrapping themselves in concern over "public health." They hate what you are and they want to control your life.

And you know what? In a free country, they have the right to hate. But they do not have a right to act on it, to make the government a tool of their bigotry. Whether you smoke or not, it's time to tell the government to butt out when it comes to smoking bans. There is no medical or scientific justification for them, and the free market can take care of addressing the preferences of differing groups.

You can start by contacting the Bloomington City Council. Or you can reach the author at libertariantom-at-gmail.com.

- posted by Tom Pick @ 8:15 AM