(This one comes to us courtesy of my stepson Adam, who now and again feels the need to expose his stepfather as the clueless, inept maroon he can occasionally be.)
To begin, I would like to mention a few things about myself. I do not currently smoke, nor have I ever. I am a believer in various radical tobacco control regulations, specifically, I believe the US should restrict tobacco exports to countries that do not have laws requiring warning labels of sufficient clarity on tobacco products. I believe that some ideals can be compromised because others are more important. For example, free trade can be sacrificed because trade that results in coercion, addiction, and the deaths of millions is not truly “free” in any sense of the word.
I do, however, have my limits. I don’t believe that smoking should be banned. I don’t agree that government controlling the health of the population is by default a good thing. And I don’t think that government should ban smoking in private establishments.
Before I outline my position, I would like to preemptively respond to an argument that will be among the first to fly off of many of your keyboards (Jack, I’m looking at you.) The argument that “I know my position is not logically sound, fully supported by evidence or valid legal reasoning, and that it is purely emotional” is a dangerous reason to keep believing something. The same reasoning is exploited to various degrees to justify, among other things: Japanese internment, the war in Iraq, torture, government lying to the people, government spying on the people, banning gay marriage, banning interracial marriage, banning gay adoption, banning interracial adoption, segregation, slavery. I could go on and on. Remember when you read this that if your only defense is “well, it’s how I feel,” you have become the very hypocrites you decry daily in your blogs, in your political arguments, and in conversations with friends.
Restaurants, bars, and nightclubs are all private property, despite the fact that they are patronized by the public. This is why bouncers can toss you from a bar, why you can’t go to a restaurant when it’s closed, and why you can’t break anything without paying for it. In the United States, property owners enjoy virtually limitless control over their property. They are barred from engaging only in those activities that are dangerous to people outside the property, such as allowing people to drink and drive, building a 500 foot tower without notifying the FAA, or keeping an unleashed attack dog in the front yard.
These same property rights are the ones which ensure that you can paint your kitchen wall whatever color you want, that your local Denny’s can serve french fries, and that a bar owner can allow smoking in her bar. It is important to note here, that I am not making a slippery-slope argument. I am not saying that banning smoking in bars will lead to government regulation of kitchen paints. What I am attempting to highlight is exactly which principle is at stake in this debate. Invalidating a bar owner’s rights to allow smoking in his bar also invalidates that very same principle that keeps you free in your own home. This will become important later, because it is that principle that you must weigh against the idea of government regulation.
I often hear in these debates that the “right to breathe clean air” trumps a smoker’s “right to pollute their lungs.” This is true. You have the right to avoid situations that put your health in danger. What is often misunderstood is that this is a defense of my argument, not the “non-smoker’s rights” position. You have the absolute right not to go to Denny’s because they allow smoking. You are free to stop going to Sherlock’s, Steak and Ale, or your neighbor’s house, since there may be smoking there.
Unfortunately, you do not have the right to go wherever you want. Your right to clean air, then, as far as the government is obligated to enforce it, only extends as far as the places either owned by you or specifically requiring a public presence. You have the absolute right to ban smoking in your house, and you should expect the government to uphold your rights in government buildings, parks, busses, cabs, clinics, hospitals, etc.
Failure to recognize this simple truth results from failing to understand the following fact: This is not a battle between the rights of smokers and the rights of non-smokers. To frame it that way is to horribly skew the argument. Rather, this is a debate that pits government control on one side and private property and individual liberty on the other. This is where the earlier analysis about private property becomes important. When supporting smoking bans in private establishments, you aren‚Äôt making any statement whatsoever about the non-smoker‚Äôs rights. What you are saying is that government power should be more important in our legal system than the principles of individual freedom and property rights. If this is the kind of government you envision, it is vastly different from the one founded on “unalienable rights” that I would like to live in.
What is at issue is the fact that the property owner‚Äôs right to smoke (or allow smoking) trumps the government‚Äôs right to tell him no. That certain individuals who do not care for smoking may desire to patronize his establishment is irrelevant. It is private property, and the customer is fully aware of the smoking situation on the inside. If you don‚Äôt like the situation, don‚Äôt go. Much like you only have an expectation of privacy in your private space, you only have an expectation that the world will conform to your wishes in that same space. I refuse to sacrifice my rights on the altar of your desires, or my government’s whim.
The solution to this problem is clearly apparent, and lies in yet another argument that is often thrown in my face without understanding how it works in my favor. Smoking is becoming increasingly socially unacceptable. Voluntary bans on smoking are becoming ever more popular with restaurant and bar owners because they result in lower insurance costs and sometimes more customers. Voluntary action is the silver bullet because it upholds everyone’s rights: the smoker’s right to smoke wherever it’s allowed, the non-smoker’s right to be free of smoke where he has that expectation, and the property owner’s right to decide which legal activity can and can’t take place in her establishment. The fact that this will take time is no excuse to trample personal liberty through misguided policy that is an insult to 230 years of progress. We deserve better.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Everyone is wrong when they argue with me :)
Excellent post Adam! I enjoyed it even more than the cigar I lit before reading it. (And not once did you say, "Jane, you ignorant slut!")
Adam,
It's not just how I feel. It's what I know and it's in my medical records. I have documented allergies to tobacco smoke of such severity that five minutes' exposure will bring on a reaction equivalent to a severe allergy attack.
It's a physical fact that without a solid wall and separate ventilation systems, smokers' effluent cannot be confined/redirected so that nonsmokers are not exposed to it.
So long as the laws of physics apply, my right not to be literally made ill is just like my right not to have your freely-swinging fist break my nose.
I don't go in places where I see placards warning that smoking is allowed. I have foregone lunches that were important parts of working days and/or conferences because I walked into the chosen restaurant and my eyes began to water and my throat close up; I literally have to wait outside.
Do I deserve to be discriminated against so that others can poison themselves, and then my tax and healthcare insurance premium costs can go up to try to ameliorate the results of their addiction?
The world is not a fair place. I am sorry for that, but it is true. There are times when liberties and freedoms are inconvenient, and for you, this is one of those times. I am sorry for that too.
However, the fact that you devolve the debate into whether or not you "deserve to be discrimiated against" shows your unwillingness to see the issue as it really is. You're not being discriminated against. If you have a problem with tax dollars paying for illnesses related to smoking, take that up with your representatives and your health insurance company, it is not related to the issue at hand. Not only do you not "deserve" to be "discriminated against," you "deserve" absolutely nothing. The property owners that you would have subjected to government control owe you nothing, and your assertions otherwise won't change that fact.
Here's a little bit of argument I've been waiting to try out on someone just like you. I am well aware in advance the shitstorm this is likely to cause, and I welcome it:
Why doesn't the government have the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her body when a potential life hangs in the balance, but the government CAN tell a smoker what she can and can't do to her body when potential lives hang in the balance? Surely second-hand smoke isn't as acutely dangerous to the third party as an abortion?
Right, Adam...what's that line from "Thank You for Smoking"? If you argue correctly, you're never wrong"....
I would have to say that the abortion/second hand smoke analogy is a good one and I never thougt of it in those terms. You are gonna make one helluva lawyer!
So my argument's a devolution?
What about yours -- that the tenant (fetus) has rights to the use of the space (uterus) which trump the rights of the owner of the space (fertile female) despite whatever dangers the tenant's continuing use of the space (eclampsia, pre-eclampsia, incompatible Rh syndrome, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, vaginal fistula) pose to the owner of the space?
Geez, talk about discrimination == and this argument does indeed discriminate solely against a class of human beings: fertile females desirous of not completing a pregnancy.