The Obvious Case Against a Smoking Ban
Tennessee is considering a statewide ban on smoking in workplaces, including bars and restaurants, and apparently restaurant owners who have already banned smoking voluntarily were asked to testify. The meat of the story:
Gov. Phil Bredesen has proposed banning smoking at work, a prohibition that includes restaurants and bars.
Tuesday, restaurant owners that have already adopted a workplace smoking ban testified to the House Agriculture Committee in support of an overall, government-backed ban. In their establishments, a smoking ban has benefited their bottom-lines and the health of their employees and customers, they said.
If lawmakers had any common sense, this testimony ought to kill any talk of a ban where it stands. The restaurant owners said it themselves: they benefit from banning smoking voluntarily. Later in the article, they say they don’t see why this self-evident truth hasn’t dawned on other restaurant owners, except possibly for some irrational fear.
There is simply no need to compel a restaurant owner by force of law — meaning by threat of financial harm or incarceration — to enact something that is obviously in his self-interest. And if he should have some local knowledge that led him to believe it was not in his self-interest, why not let him play it out and either (a) discover he was right to be wary or (b) lose business to his competitors until he changed his mind?
Oh, and here’s my pre-emptive response to the two most common counter-arguments. First, a ”private” establishment is the sovereign property of the owner, and does not become a public establishment just because it contains people who voluntarily entered and can voluntarily exit. Second, if you believe a ban is necessary because workers don’t have a choice where they work, you’d better be prepared to prove they are literally slaves, because otherwise you are making a pretty bold and paternalistic claim about the decision-making capacity of self-respecting individuals.
Like Jacob said a while back, this smoking ban business is so absurd on its face. Can’t lawmakers just come out and admit that the majority (including me) doesn’t like smoking and that it (not including me) is willing to oppress the rights of a minority in order to get rid of it? No need for charades; the moral high ground simply does not exist, and don’t pretend it does.
Joel wrote:
I’ll admit it: I don’t like smoking and I don’t like that people can do it in those establishments I choose to patronize. I’m all for banning it in the workplace, and, frankly, in any place that’s not one’s own home or automobile (with the windows up). It’s a filthy, disgusting habit that infringes on my ability to breathe clean air.
Is banning smoking the “right” thing to do? Probably not. But it’s not going to make me any less excited to see such a ban pass in Tennessee. And there’s really not a rational argument that anyone can make that would make me oppose a smoking ban.
But at least I’m honest.
Posted on 04-Apr-07 at 8:45 am | Permalink
Chad wrote:
No “at least” about it — honesty is the whole ballgame at this point as far as I’m concerned. No activist group is going to stop the momentum smoking bans have, and frankly, I believe people are better off not smoking and I’m better off not enduring it. But thank God we’re not having the rights argument.
Posted on 04-Apr-07 at 9:01 am | Permalink