This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Mar 31, 2005
u
Restaurateurs should make their own decisions on their menus and smoking in
their businesses u
The owners and managers of restaurants
should be able to decide whether they will allow smoking or serve fatty foods in
their establishments.The government shouldn't take over these decisions. It
should limit itself to ensuring sanitary food preparation practices.Each
restaurant should be able to decide whether it wants to cater to smokers or
nonsmokers or how it wants to mix the seating for each.If a business doesn't
allow smoking, smokers can go elsewhere. Conversely, if a business allows more
smoking than a nonsmoker wants to tolerate, he is free to dine somewhere
else.There is no monopoly on eateries and no reason for the government to
establish uniformity on smoking.But state Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, has
introduced a bill that would ban smoking in South Carolina restaurants. He says
he has tolerated smoking in restaurants for years and wants a change.What
Rutherford really wants is to impose his preferences on the rest of the state.
Instead, he should simply look for restaurants that cater to his demands.Let
businesses determine how best to serve their market, either the general
population or a niche. They will survive based on how many people will pay to go
there and eat.No one, including Rutherford, is forced to eat in a restaurant he
doesn't want to be in.Likewise, no one is forced to order food that is bad for
him. But to hear nutrition activists' criticism of the new Burger King breakfast
item, you'd think the fast-food chain was forcing it down people's throats.The
new Enormous Omelet Sandwich has 730 calories and 47 grams of fat. Nutrition
activists are up in arms. A spokesman for a group that lobbies for government
controls on restaurant advertising called it "irresponsible."But Burger King is
not responsible for people'sdiets. The company is not promoting this sandwich as
health food. It isn't hiding the high-calorie and high-fat nature of it. The
very name of the sandwich implies its nature.The fat and calorie intake of each
adult citizen is his own decision. Nutrition activists make much of the
consumption of fast food by children, but children don't eat the stuff unless
their parents buy it for them or allow them to buy it. This is the
responsibility of the parents, not fast-food restaurants.Rutherford and the
nutrition activists seem to be upset with other Americans for not following a
lifestyle that is healthy enough or that matches their tastes. So they seek to
impose those decisions on everyone.They should back off and live only their own
lives.