LITTLE ROCK — The argument of the slippery slope yet again proves itself more reality than myth.
This time the city of Fayetteville, which seldom considers a restrictive ordinance or regulation that it doesn’t like, will decide if smoking should be banned not only in city restaurants, which it was in 2004, but now-feel that slip?-in lounges, bars and pool halls.
Those who freely choose to work in such smoky environments may well have a higher incidence of lung cancer triggered by secondhand smoke than other professions do. Seems logical. It’s equally logical that those who hunt are more apt to be injured or die from an accidental gunshot. Do we then ban hunting?
What of the bartenders who serve smokers the alcohol, a proven cause of serious health problems, domestic abuse and highway deaths? Should lounges be forbidden to allow them to provide potentially harmful, even deadly alcohol to other? If not, why not?
I’m reminded of a late friend who was belting one tequila shot after another at a bar one night. I cared enough to finally ask how many brain cells he reckoned he was killing with each glass. He smirked and responded, “Well, Mike, they are my brain cells.”
Sure, it’s regrettable that some bartenders will contract cancer at some point for any number of reasons, but it’s good to know they have the freedom to choose another line of work should they decide not to assume the risks of a smoky environment.
This personal-liberty thing reallyis a wondrous, yet responsible way to live, isn’t it?
Ward I Alderman Adella Gray, who introduced the no-smoking-inbars amendment to a 2004 no-smoking-in-other-places ordinance, summarized my point perfectly when she argued: “I don’t want folks who need a job to have to be exposed to something that’s as harmful as secondhand smoke.” Catch that? She doesn’t want folks to have to be exposed.
It’s admirable that Gray feels compassionate, nannylike instincts that lead her to want to care for mature adults who are capable of making choices in their own lives. But again, my friends, what does having a nanny do for freedom of choice?
Gray said that two other aldermen have offered to be co-sponsors. The council will take up her proposal later this year.
My sole concern is that this amendment represents a slick slip on the slope toward government’s methodically closing doors on one freedom after another, despite how well-intentioned and relatively benign it might seem.
Most Arkansans-most Americans, for that matter-have preferred to make their own choices and live with the consequences, kinda like the full-grown female bartender who was quoted in a news story as saying thatshe didn’t care for government functioning as her parent.
“There’s no one who needs to watch out for me,” she said.
A Fayetteville bar and pool hall owner said that the majority of his customers enjoy smoking and drinking while they play pool and visit. What would this amendment do to his small business? Is his right to make a living still a legitimate point worth arguing here in the land of the free?
Just as the question of smoking in Fayetteville’s restaurants was debated at length until it finally produced another prohibitive ordinance in 2004, this one undoubtedly will be discussed until blue smoke wafts from thousands of ears.
Then Fayetteville’s City Council members will have to look into their own mirrors and decide if their responsibility is to serve the adults of Fayetteville or take them to raise.
Protection
GOP state Rep. Bryan King of Berryville has introduced House Bill 1487, which, much like Montana “firearms freedom” legislation, would exempt firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Arkansas from federal laws or regulations, including registration.
Good for King, who’s looking out for the folks of Arkansas at a time of unprecedented federal intrusion into individual liberties. Be sure to scrutinize your legislator’s vote on this bill.
-
———◊-
———
Mike Masterson is opinion editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’s Northwest edition.
Editorial, Pages 75 on 02/27/2011