by Max Borders Private, indoor environments are not the same as public, outdoor spaces.  People were shocked last month upon hearing that Ireland had managed to ban smoking in public places. In a country where Guinness flows like tap water, it seemed bizarre that the government would deny a pub-dwelling public its overpriced, overtaxed cigarettes. Indeed, an entire country banning smoking? A more liberty-minded person might tut-tut over the Irish smoking ban, and say something like: well at least I live in a country where such issues are handled at the level of local municipalities.
Before noon today, I entered the term ‘smoking ban’ in Google News. Nine news stories about smoking bans appeared, and I hadn’t even had lunch. Five of these were in US towns: Washington, DC; Manchester, New Hampshire; Springfield, Missouri; Cleveland, Ohio; and St. Paul, Minnesota. (The UK had three stories to itself, as well.) Sure, all of these are local municipalities, but these stories reflect a wider trend of local governments bent on protecting “workers rights” in the name of public health. In fact, I would say it is more than a trend. It is a cancer that has metastasized in lungs of the US body politic. Death by Subsidiarity Yes, we can take some comfort in the fact that the federal government has not (yet) set out to mandate a wholesale ban on smoking in so-called public places. But every single day, town-hall cabals and community paternalists are making people’s rights to property go up in smoke. Now, I would be remiss if I failed to consider the public health argument. It goes something like this: 1) People have to work to make a living 2) Many people work in restaurants and bars 3) People who work in “smoking” restaurants and bars can be exposed to second-hand smoke, which is a health risk 4) Local governments feel it is their responsibility to protect worker health
I realize that there are a host of other motivations behind smoking bans, but this seems to be the only one that could ever hold any water. So, I’ll pass over arguments that non-smoking patrons find smoking to be a “nuisance,” since these patrons are free to patronize non-smoking restaurants (and surely if there is a plurality of non-smokers who would support a smoking ban, then there must also be a market for non-smoking restaurant enthusiasts). I’ll pass over the “customer health” argument on similar grounds. But what about the employees? But what about employees of smoking restaurants? Don’t proprietors put employee health at risk when workers are asked to perform in such an environment? No. Common sense tells us that a worker chooses to put his own health at risk, just as a smoker does when he lights up. Workers can easily request to work in a non-smoking section where the risk of second hand smoke is reduced. Or, they can look for work in a non-smoking establishment. But why should a worker have to choose between his health and his livelihood? If such were the choice, we would have to assume that there were no other alternative places of employment. No non-smoking restaurants or pubs. No groceries. No clothing stores. No daycare centers. No car detail shops. Nothing. And that’s just ridiculous. The fact is people have to gauge risks and make choices every day. When people decide to work in smoky bars, they are aware of the risks. Ultimately they conclude the benefits they receive are worth those risks. The same can be said for people who work in other risky professions such as window washing, roofing, garbage collecting, or race car driving. And yet we are happy to let these workers make their own risk assessments so we can have clean windows, patched roofs, empty trash bins and NASCAR. So can we have environmentalism in indoor spaces? Of course, if there are enough people who require smoke-free restaurants and bars, the market will provide them. By the same token, people who prefer not to bear risks associated with second hand smoke may choose a similar work environment. The absurdity The absurd paradox in most of these local ordinances is that, while smoking is being banned on people’s private property, it is not banned in public thoroughfares. I don’t know how many times I’ve been walking down a crowded street and had some idiot puffing on a Marlboro in my face as I walk five paces behind. I don’t have to walk into a bar, but sometimes I do have to walk down the street. If there is any place we could reasonably ban smoking, it is in places we all have to pay for, such as parks, streets, and government buildings. But in the streets of San Francisco, you will find cigarette butts littering the public sidewalks outside private bars, because people file into the streets in order to smoke. I’m sure you would find the same in Dublin, now. I can’t imagine how people can sit still with so much backwardness being dealt them by their community leaders. I’m afraid this is going to have to be a long, hard legal battle that begins when a courageous bar owner sues a small town city council and the battle rages all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe then, we can finally put this nonsense to rest and start giving workers their agency back, and bar-owners their property back… And that is the saddest aspect in all of this anti-smoking witch-huntery. The people who are losing are the proprietors who only ever wanted to run a good ole friendly bar—where people can get a drink, have a cigarette, and talk to one another about how proud they are to live in a country that is free. | 
