|
The Logic Behind Smoking Bans
By Theresa Fritz Camoriano
The proponents of smoking bans have two basic reasons for proposing a law that
would prevent people from smoking in privately-owned businesses, such as
restaurants and bars:
1. They want to be free to go anywhere they choose without being exposed to
tobacco smoke – using the law to impose their preferences on others.
2. They believe that a smoking ban is a reasonable government intrusion for the
purpose of protecting people’s health.
Let’s take a closer look at these reasons. I have a lot of sympathy for reason
number 1. I would love to be able to go anywhere I choose without being exposed
to tobacco smoke. However, I don’t believe I should impose my preferences on
others just because my view happens to be in the majority.
What if the majority of people preferred to listen to country and western music?
Should there be a law requiring this in all restaurants? Of course not! Most of
us recognize that imposing our tastes on other people through government force
is wrong. We are far better off respecting the right of property owners to
control the use of their own property and respecting the right of business
owners to cater to the clientele they choose.
Which brings us to reason number 2 – protecting the public health.
Proponents of a smoking ban say that it has always been considered proper to use
the police power to protect the public health, and, as an example, they cite
regulations which require restaurants to use sanitary practices in order to
avoid contaminating their food. However, there is a great difference between
sanitary regulations and a smoking ban. Nobody who goes into a restaurant wants
to eat contaminated food, and no restaurant owner wants to serve contaminated
food, so sanitary regulations are not trampling on anyone’s preferences. In
contrast, a smoking ban certainly does trample on the preferences of many
business owners and their customers.
The smoking ban proponents then go further, saying that, since smoking is bad
for people’s health, and since we have to pay for smokers’ health care through
taxes and health insurance premiums, we should have a right to pass laws that
prevent them from engaging in this unhealthy habit. But the real problem here is
the existing laws that force us to subsidize other people’s unhealthy habits. If
health insurance companies were free to establish premiums based on risk, and if
smoking really does increase health care costs, then the insurance companies
would charge higher premiums to smokers, just as life insurance companies do.
This would cause smokers to pay full freight for their habit, while still
respecting their right to smoke. As is frequently the case, the source of this
problem is excessive government regulation (in this case regulation of health
insurance), and the situation will not be improved by imposing still more
government regulations.
If a potential for increased health care costs is all it takes to justify
government intrusion into private property, then there is no limit to the kinds
of laws that could be passed, since everything we do affects our health. Should
we have government inspectors checking our cupboards to make sure we are not
housing any unhealthy snack foods in our homes? Should we be required to have
updated health certificates finding us free of venereal disease before we are
allowed to engage in sex? Should we outlaw bungee jumping, hang gliding, roller
skating, trampolines, snow shovels, and scuba diving?
While safety certainly is a concern, it’s time for us to think seriously about
the importance of respecting other people and their right to control the use of
their own property before we find ourselves regulated into little padded cells,
where life will be very safe but not much worth living.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin
|
