The Smoking Gun of Despotism

The State of Ohio passed a law in 2006 banning smoking from nearly every indoor building. Smoking is prohibited in restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and any other “public” building. California passed a similar law more than a decade ago and many other states have either passed similar laws or have pending legislation. In addition, there are numerous local and regional smoking bans across the country. Ostensibly, these laws are to protect customers, workers and bystanders, from the harmful and annoying effects of second hand smoke. 

No one can credibly argue that inhaling smoke year after year is not a health risk. While there is much debate over the health risks of second hand smoke, a smoker has no right to force tobacco smoke on others. If we accept the idea that smokers do not have the right to force unwanted and possibly dangerous second hand smoke on others, smoking bans seem not only reasonable, but necessary. One person’s right to breathe clean air outweighs another’s right to smoke. This is the argument used to promote and justify smoking bans.

However, this line of thinking has fatal and misleading flaws. Were a smoker to enter a non-smokers home and begin smoking, the non-smoker is deprived of the right to breathe clean air. Imagine though, a smoker and a non-smoker at the home of a third individual. This home owner permits smoking. Does the non-smoker have the right to insist that the home owner prohibit smoking? One cannot force another to prohibit smoking in a private residence any more than they can demand that furniture be arranged to their liking.

Smoking bans are not about weighing the rights of smokers and non-smokers. Restaurants, bars and any other business are not public spaces. They are private property. Employees are invited to work at the pleasure of the owner and subject to the owner’s rules and customs. No one has a right to work at a particular business and is free to leave any employment they view as dangerous or simply unpleasant. Customers and visitors have no greater rights. They can simply refuse to visit or patronize the business. If business owner loses sufficient customers and employees, economics will take over and smoking will be banned by the owner. Because societal acceptance of smoking is waning and fewer people smoke than in the past, this trend was well on it’s was without the government’s intervention.

Non-smokers do not have the right to force a property owner to comply with their preferences. This is a step down the proverbial slippery slope. If the government can dictate smoking policy at a business, it is not much of a reach to extend the law to private homes. It is also not too difficult to begin to control other things.

Ice-cream, candy bars and cheeseburgers are thought to bad for a person’s health. Suppose we ban those items and force everyone to work out weekly. Does this seem an extreme example? Chicago banned the serving of Foie gras at restaurants and New York City banned foods cooked with trans fat. In both cases, the bans are described as measures to protect the health of the citizens.

Is it possible that these laws have another less obvious purpose?

Visit a path less traveled.