But let’s look a little closer at the “Property Rights” issue. That is certainly an important consideration and under proper circumstances property rights should be taken very seriously. Were ETS to actually present the extraordinary health risks that anti-tobacco activists claim, however, bingo halls and state run casinos would have no more “right” to permit it in their establishments than they have a right to serve tainted food or contaminated drinking water. When it comes to addressing well-documented health risks that are credibly proven by legitimate science, public health departments are properly granted very strong powers of inspection and enforcement. Should there be a breakout of typhoid any where in West Virginia the Health Departments would quite properly demand that the business owner repair an open cess-pool behind their establishment. Were the drinking water in a bar shown to include dangerous bacteria well above established limits that bar would be required to fix the problem or close their doors. Any bar or tavern owner who refused to do so because they had “rights” would properly be cited and then closed down if they persisted in refusing to address that threat to public health. Asserting business owner “rights” without addressing the illegitimate risks of ETS in a meaningful way is to advocate irresponsible public health anarchy. In effect, those who oppose smoking bans based exclusively on business owner rights are saying loud and clear to the public that they demand their “right” to persist in maintaining a direct and immediate threat to public health because it will cost them money to abate the threat. I will not be associated in any way with that implied statement. I believe that such a position is at once irresponsible from a public health standpoint and rank anarchy by any business interests that advocate it.
How about a real Clean Indoor Air Law? Ask me!