from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed

threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a

cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized

throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local

government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of

unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom

menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal

indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper

reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating

people about the potential danger and allowing them to make

their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force

people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than

attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the

tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have

actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and

offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose

customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local

bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously

negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be

answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment

of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding

every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend

or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married

or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful

consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the

neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must

be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only

his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette

smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and

unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the

power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of

inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your

favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm

at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited

intrusion of government into our lives.

We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

Thomas Laprade

480 Rupert St.

Thunder Bay, Ont.

The news item has been corrected.

From the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch:

Ohio's smoking ban applies to private clubs, high court rules

By James Nash

Veterans' halls and other members-only clubs will be no-smoking zones despite Gov. Ted Strickland's quest to exempt them from the statewide smoking ban.

The Ohio Supreme Court extinguished the clubs' last legal case to get out from under the law that bans smoking at restaurants, bars and nearly all other public buildings.

Without comment today, the state's highest court let stand rulings from the Franklin County Common Pleas Court and Court of Appeals that applied the smoking ban to private clubs because their employees would be exposed to secondhand smoke.

The court's 4-3 decision left some clubs gasping for air. …

***