Grand Forks Smoking Ban Having Mixed Results
Grand Forks Herald - It's been about 2 months since Grand Forks' smoking ban went into effect and, for businesses that expected to see the biggest impact, the record has been decidedly mixed.
Red Ray Lanes bowling alley, for example, actually might have gained a few customers because bowlers no longer have to put up with secondhand smoke, said owner Jim Flynn.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Bingo Palace is losing money. "Significant amounts of money," said Ron Gibbens, president of the North Dakota Association for the Disabled, which runs the bingo parlor. His customers have been heading to East Grand Forks to spend their money, he said.
The East Grand Forks City Council, however, is mulling a ban that, in some ways, would be less restrictive than Grand Forks'. The question is how many businesses will have the same experience as Red Ray Lanes and how many will experience what the Bingo Palace is going through.
Critics of this and other smoking bans could have warned people that this sort of thing was coming.
You know what would have been a better solution to this whole mess? No solution at all. If Red Ray Lanes can see a customer increase by banning smoking, then let that business institute its own ban. That way the people can, individually, make their own decision about smoking without having to create a sweeping ban that could negatively impact other businesses. If people want to be in the smoke (or don't mind it), they'll go to Red Ray Lanes. If they want out of it, they'll go somewhere else. Or they won't go at all.
This idea that it is the government's responsibility to protect people from something like second hand smoke is ridiculous. It is the people's responsibility to protect themselves from second hand smoke. Just as it is their responsibility to protect themselves from things like overeating or taking too many sleeping pills.
If enough people decide that they want to protect themselves from second hand smoke then businesses (bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc.) will adapt. They aren't going to let themselves be put out of business, so they'll figure out a way to cater to these people. But regardless of how these businesses handle the situation, what we cannot do is use the law to dictate whether or not they can allow smoking.
We're not talking about public places here, we're talking about private property. If a business owner wants to allow something like smoking on their property then they should be allowed to do that. People who complain can, and should, be told that they can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the environment.
Sadly, though, that's not what has happened. Instead a group of people have used the rule of law to enforce a certain kind of behavior on the people. Which, in this particular instance, maybe a lot of us don't have a problem with it. The thing I worry about is the next instance, when they'll be trying to ban salt or something.
We cannot have freedom unless we truly have freedom. That begins with small freedoms like the right to dictate whether or not you'll allow something like smoking on your private property.
imagine
AKAJOEL
Kevin
Justin B.
pcND
