Smokers in Seattle are fuming, and with good reason. Is America about to declare war on smokers?
"A coalition of health groups yesterday announced an effort to change state law to outlaw smoking in all public places, including bars, restaurants and bowling alleys. ... Two legislators predicted that the move toward a statewide measure has a solid chance of passing when lawmakers meet in January. If approved, it would give Washington one of the strictest smoking bans in the nation." - Wyatt Buchanan, Coalition begins effort to extinguish smoking in public places, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 16, 2003
This comes close on the heels of a new anti-smoking ordinance just south of Seattle, in Pierce County:
"Pierce County has decided to do what no community in Washington has done: ban smoking in all indoor, public places, including bars, taverns, restaurants and bowling alleys." - Sandi Doughton, Pierce County approves smoking ban in all indoor public places, Seattle Times, December 3, 2003
Now, before I get off on a rant, let me state right up front that I do not smoke. In fact, in 1962 or 1963, decades before there were groups such as the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, my father enlisted my sister's artistry and my wordsmithing to create posters to aid him in what turned into a more than 20-year-long quest to persuade Boeing to adopt a smoke-free work environment policy. There are a lot of good reasons why smoking, in most work places, should be prohibited, the assertions of some proponents of puffery not withstanding:
"Many argue for a ban on smoking in the workplace. And if, for example, an employer concludes that it is cheaper to hire non-smokers, who could object to his banning smoking on his premises? But if another employer concludes that it is cheaper to hire smokers - perhaps because they'll take lower pay in order to be able to smoke at work - why should we object to that choice'? So long as non-smokers have other employment options, if they choose to work for an employer that allows smoking, they have no basis to complain." - Stephen Bainbridge, Smoking Bans and Property Rights, Ban the Ban, November 8, 2003
This presumes most of us really do have a choice in where we work. The fact of the matter is that, most of us don't have much of a choice as to where we work. That's just the reality of things. And in that context, Professor Bainbridge's argument doesn't hold up. The explanation why gets a little complex, and I apologize for that, but I'll do my best to make it as clear as possible.
His argument is essentially libertarian, and you can find a thorough explanation of the principles involved in the late Murray N. Rothbard's excellent and very readable book, The Ethics of Liberty. Basically, it says that all rights are property rights, the first piece of property we own is our body, and every other right stems from that. That, in a nutshell, is the easiest way to understand libertarianism.
Without going into all the ramifications, in a libertarian society Professor Bainbridge's argument is reasonable. Libertarian societies only exist, however, in theory and science fiction, and Libertarianism, like Marxism and Socialism, is a utopian notion which depends on the fundamental good will of man to work. Religiously, this may be both a possible and desirable goal, but it can never be achieved through political means because you simply can't depend on everybody to act out of good will.
Hence, any form of government predicated on the universal good will of man is doomed to fall either from the chaos of anarchy within, or from an aggressor nation without. Thus, we have laws to limit our liberty. As Edmund Burke long ago explained, "That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it." - Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790.
That's a highly over-simplified political refutation of libertarianism, but what does it have to do with banning smoking in the workplace? Because we do not, and cannot, live in a libertarian society, we have laws limiting our liberties, and because some of those limitations have been leveraged, largely, it might be noted, under Democratic administrations, by politically elite minorities and corporate lobbyists to the disadvantage of the common citizen, our options have been so reduced that in many cases we have little choice where we can work.
In short, most of us have to take work where we can get it. For this reason, we have rights in the workplace which are imposed by law. Laws against discrimination, laws that impose safety requirements, and more recently, laws against smoking.
But where do these protections end? Well, they should end at the door. Outside, smoke gets dispersed. And while smug non-addicts, like me, may smirk as we walk by, we have neither the right nor the need to demand protection against their addiction out-of-doors. That, however, is where this is headed. A quick search on Google brings up a number of links to efforts to ban outdoor smoking in communities, beaches and parks.
Where will it end? With the complete criminalization of tobacco? Hemp was criminalized, so why not tobacco? Think about it.
References and Recommended Reading
|