Pity poor Joe Camel. With him out at the retirement pastures and the Marlboro man likewise roaming the wild blue yonder, who left to seduce pretty young things?
Actually, it doesn⁴ matter. It not like they would have a place to smoke anyway. With public smoking bans (covering bars, restaurants, and the like) spreading like weeds, suddenly the idea of leaving people free to choose a smoking or non-smoking establishment seems shockingly primitive. Under the pressure of non-smokers† ights, †dour paternalism, and shaky science, personal libertyf property and bodyas been eviscerated.
Neo-prohibitionist vigilantes argue that non-smokers need to be protected from noxious fumes. Restaurant patrons, they cry, have a ight †to eat in a smoke-free environment, and bar workers should never be orced †to work in a smoky haze. And these hypocrite liberal lecteurs know the solution: a totalitarian-minded ban on smoking in public places.
Let us be clear about what these bans entail: They deprive private property owners of control over their own assetsalling them ⁰ublic †smoking bans is quite a misnomer. Forget antiquated notions of private property and toleranceabid left-wing activists happily march around under ⁺ero tolerance †banners, proudly advocating complete intolerance of a victim-less crime.
This zealotry is particularly curious because we already have a mechanism that provides for the desires of non-smokers: the free market. Instead of imposing their personal preferences on society, non-smokers can choose to patronize non-smoking establishments; smokers can likewise express their preferences. In response to consumer demand, bars and restaurants provide both smoking and non-smoking environments, and everyone wins.
Perhaps if brief exposure to cigarette smoke posed serious health risks, like sarin gas, regulation would be needed to protect bystanders from accidental contact. But the alleged danger of secondhand smoke depends on sustained, long-term exposure, which limits the risk to the population of volunteers.
Indeed, it is doubtful that smokers endanger bystanders at all. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, out of twenty-three studies of workplace passive smoke, ⁏nly one reported a statistically significant association between exposure to secondhand smoke at the workplace and risk for lung cancer. †
Not that lack of evidence bothers the crusaders. We can⁴ possibly allow smoking, because bar workers are economically coerced and must suffer under their employer terms. Unfortunately, scarcity is a rule on earth, and everyone who needs to work to live is similarly conomically coerced †into their occupationnd some into far more dangerous occupations like commercial fishing or mining. Bartenders and waiters, like fisherman, know the conditions of their employment⁰resuming that anyone competent enough to carry a dish can find an alternative jobnd they take the job because its benefits outweigh the dangers.
Even the perfect victim, voluntarily accepting a small risk, needs to be saved according to nanny-state activists, because smokers impose healthcare costs on society. However, the cold logic of smoking actually produces savings; by dying younger, smokers save society the trouble of paying for old-age healthcare costs and Social Security benefits. Including cigarette taxes, smokers are often actually a net benefit to federal and state treasuries.
Moreover, if potential healthcare costs justify controlling citizens†actions, there are no limits to government regulation; from sky diving to swimming in pools more than four-feet deep, we regularly engage in risky actions that on average probably raise healthcare costs. Nevertheless, few suggest that the state should prohibit every risky activity.
The dearth of utilitarian logic behind smoking bans doesn⁴ prevent the self-righteous paternalists, who argue that smokers need to be saved from themselves. After England passed a total ban on smoking in public places, The Guardian newspaper congratulated parliamentarians on rescuing citizens: ⁛Smokers] need not just encouragement to stop, but help. †Why not cut to the chase and ban cigarettes altogether?
Instead of treating smokers as children who can⁴ be trusted to make basic cost-benefit decisions, society should take their choices seriously. Despite the availability of safer alternatives (patches and gum) smokers keep smokingould it be that, gasp, they actually enjoy it? Perhaps smokers are capable of evaluating the costs of smokingn fact, they tend to over-estimate the dangersnd simply find smoking worth the risk.
Ultimately, smoking bans represent far more than a minor inconvenience to smokers; this neo-prohibitionism paves the road to far greater somatic oppression, because it sanctifies the violation of personal liberty and private property to prevent private harms and freely-chosen dangers. Inventing ights †to protectustomers†and workers†so-called right to a smoke-free environmentelf-appointed health-nannies want the power to impose their personal preferences on everyone.
As a non-smoker, I understand how pleasant it would be to simply walk into a bar and demand that it cater to my particular smoke-free preferences, but what gives me the right to impose my personal choices on others? In a liberal democratic society, tolerance of harmless actions is a virtue that enables the peaceful functioning of society“ach person should enjoy maximum liberty, consistent with the like liberty of others. †J.S. Mill tolerance, rather than teetotalers, ought to be the model.
And a few alternative vocations for unemployed state nanny-ists? Perhaps designing special safety ladders. Mandating tricycle wheels. Compulsory vegetable-eating regimes? The skyay, too dangerous⁴he ground is the limit.
Piotr C. Brzezinski ‰7, a Crimson associate editorial chair, is a social studies concentrator in Winthrop House.
