The way some cities' smoking bans work, a bar owner is held liable if a customer continues to puff away despite the posted 'no smoking' signs and the absence of ashtrays. In order to avoid legal consequences, said bar owner must forcibly remove the offending customer from the premises. In other words, under the ban, it's not the people displaying the unlawful behavior who find themselves on the business end of a summons, but the person whose premises they're on.
It's a lot like cracking down on shoplifting by arresting the shop owner.
A Federal judge has now declared that part of Austin's smoking ban unconstitutional. Good.
Still, calling this a victory fails to acknowledge both the dreadful erosion of adult persons' right to choose what they consume, and the breakneck speed at which that erosion takes place.
"... said bar owner must forcibly remove the offending customer from the premises", which means bar owners exercise police powers. That is certainly against the constitution which explicitly puts the public power in the sole hands of government agencies.
What happens if the customer refuses to leave, the bar owner pushes the customer and accidentally kills him or her? What if the bar owner gets killed in his attempt to push the customer away? What if the bar owner lays his hands on a female customer who subsequently accuses the bar owner of sexual assault?
How ridiculous can you get before it hurts?
Posted by: ben | Thursday, October 05, 2006 at 06:05 PM