During High School,
I took a class on argumentation and debate. One of the topics that we
had to debate was the issue of smoking bans in restaurants and bars,
a trend which has been sweeping through the United States over the
past several decades. I expressed my strong views on the subject, and
as such was placed by the teacher onto the side of the debate which I
personally opposed. The arguments each side used during the debate
were ones I was quite familiar with. The smokers wanted the right to
smoke while the non-smokers wanted the right to breathe clean air.
Throughout the entire process, I desperately wanted to go to the
other side and explain to them exactly what kind of argument they
could use to beat us, but I was forbidden to do so. I wanted to give
them my reasoning on the subject, reasoning that I hadn't seen pop up
too often during this kind of debate. My side won the argument, and I
walked away with the most disappointed bittersweet victory I had ever
tasted.
Fast forward many years, and I now find myself working in a bar. Consequently, my work environment is filled with discussions on such topics, and when the city of Fort Collins decided to ban smoking not just inside of bars and restaurants (as had already happened many years prior), but also on all patios as well. This move sparked conversation on this familiar debate, and I kept hearing those same arguments which I had heard during my High School class: the smokers wanted the right to smoke while the non-smokers wanted the right to breathe clean air.
It is this political climate which has inspired me to finally formulate my two cents on the subject publicly. There is a profound flaw in the way that this issue is being debated. The reason why I felt such torture all those years ago in the classroom was that the focus was thrown onto the incorrect parties throughout the entire thing. The debate focused on the smokers and non-smokers, but there is a far more relevant party which this issue, and any laws passed on it, affects far more than the clients of these businesses.
Have you guessed it? I'm talking about the business owners. They are the ones who are being restricted from providing the types of services they wish to provide. They are the ones who put forth the money for the businesses, own the property with which the businesses operate, and pay taxes on their entrepreneurial endeavors. They are the ones who should be able to decide what kind of environment their customers walk into when they walk into the restaurants and bars in question. They are the ones who have the law breathing down their necks on this issue.
I can understand why this argument has thrown so much focus on smokers vs non-smokers. They are two interested parties who are very polarized. They both want to live their lives with the freedom to do so however they see fit and they are easy to group into opposing factions. This polarization appears to give credence to the smoker vs non-smoker argument.
But, I urge you to understand that this is ultimately a fallacy. If we really want to promote freedom, in all aspects, to where people can live however they choose to, we must respect the property rights of business owners. The businesses in question should be able to provide whatever kind of service they choose to. However they choose to rule on this subject internally, they will attract or repulse customers based on their decisions. There will be places where smoking won't be allowed without there ever being a law dictating that. Perhaps smokers won't go there. That's something between the establishment and their potential customers. The law has no place in this. There'll be places with non-smoking sections and smoking sections. Adament non-smokers might choose not to go there. Again, that is their decision. And finally, there will be businesses which allow smoking. At that point, the non-smoker chooses to enter or evade that establishment by their own prerogative. Caveat emptor.
"Ah," but some smoking ban supporters might say, "but what about the employees who work at establishments where smoking is permitted? That constant second hand smoke will affect their health." Perhaps so, but they chose to work there. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them that they have to work there. They might further argue that there could be circumstances where the only jobs available for certain people would be at establishments where smoking is allowed. Nonetheless, it is ultimately their decision to engage in employment at such establishments. It sounds harsh, but responsibility must accompany freedom.
It is not the job of the government to protect people from themselves. Life isn't a cakewalk, and it never will be. History has shown that whenever the government steps in in such a manner that it usually doesn't improve the situation. People should be left to their own devices without having Big Brother breathing down their necks. Some will surely harm themselves, but it's not the government's job to prevent this as in doing so they will only hinder others from succeeding by imposing on their liberties, which is, when you think about it, ultimately quite un-American.
Fast forward many years, and I now find myself working in a bar. Consequently, my work environment is filled with discussions on such topics, and when the city of Fort Collins decided to ban smoking not just inside of bars and restaurants (as had already happened many years prior), but also on all patios as well. This move sparked conversation on this familiar debate, and I kept hearing those same arguments which I had heard during my High School class: the smokers wanted the right to smoke while the non-smokers wanted the right to breathe clean air.
It is this political climate which has inspired me to finally formulate my two cents on the subject publicly. There is a profound flaw in the way that this issue is being debated. The reason why I felt such torture all those years ago in the classroom was that the focus was thrown onto the incorrect parties throughout the entire thing. The debate focused on the smokers and non-smokers, but there is a far more relevant party which this issue, and any laws passed on it, affects far more than the clients of these businesses.
Have you guessed it? I'm talking about the business owners. They are the ones who are being restricted from providing the types of services they wish to provide. They are the ones who put forth the money for the businesses, own the property with which the businesses operate, and pay taxes on their entrepreneurial endeavors. They are the ones who should be able to decide what kind of environment their customers walk into when they walk into the restaurants and bars in question. They are the ones who have the law breathing down their necks on this issue.
I can understand why this argument has thrown so much focus on smokers vs non-smokers. They are two interested parties who are very polarized. They both want to live their lives with the freedom to do so however they see fit and they are easy to group into opposing factions. This polarization appears to give credence to the smoker vs non-smoker argument.
But, I urge you to understand that this is ultimately a fallacy. If we really want to promote freedom, in all aspects, to where people can live however they choose to, we must respect the property rights of business owners. The businesses in question should be able to provide whatever kind of service they choose to. However they choose to rule on this subject internally, they will attract or repulse customers based on their decisions. There will be places where smoking won't be allowed without there ever being a law dictating that. Perhaps smokers won't go there. That's something between the establishment and their potential customers. The law has no place in this. There'll be places with non-smoking sections and smoking sections. Adament non-smokers might choose not to go there. Again, that is their decision. And finally, there will be businesses which allow smoking. At that point, the non-smoker chooses to enter or evade that establishment by their own prerogative. Caveat emptor.
"Ah," but some smoking ban supporters might say, "but what about the employees who work at establishments where smoking is permitted? That constant second hand smoke will affect their health." Perhaps so, but they chose to work there. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them that they have to work there. They might further argue that there could be circumstances where the only jobs available for certain people would be at establishments where smoking is allowed. Nonetheless, it is ultimately their decision to engage in employment at such establishments. It sounds harsh, but responsibility must accompany freedom.
It is not the job of the government to protect people from themselves. Life isn't a cakewalk, and it never will be. History has shown that whenever the government steps in in such a manner that it usually doesn't improve the situation. People should be left to their own devices without having Big Brother breathing down their necks. Some will surely harm themselves, but it's not the government's job to prevent this as in doing so they will only hinder others from succeeding by imposing on their liberties, which is, when you think about it, ultimately quite un-American.
