In a recent op-ed in the Raleigh News & Observer, the author thinks that because a bunch of other places have banned smoking, so should North Carolina:
We know that now, or we should. They certainly know it in 19 other states, where smoking even in bars is banned, or is about to be. Those states include such inconsequential places as California, New York, Arizona and Illinois (which acted just this month). They also know it in entire countries — England (starting July 1), Ireland (yes, smoking is banned even in Irish pubs), New Zealand, Norway and many more.
A lot of other countries have a national religion, but that doesn’t mean we should. This faulty reasoning is a form of fallacy ad populum. It amounts to ‘everyone else is, so we should too.’
The author goes on to dismiss one of the basic principles of our republic, while making a false comparison with health and hygiene regulation:
And they don’t waste a lot of breath on the "property rights" argument. Public accommodations have long been regulated for reasons of public health. It’s no big step from barring bacteria-contaminated burgers to banning carcinogen-contaminated smoke. If this were about rights, what about the right of workers to practice their trades in air not made unhealthy by smokers’ actions? Or the right of municipalities to limit smoking locally, as hundreds in the United States have done, but as state law here has prohibited?
Having to explain to Americans why property rights are important is, in itself, disturbing. First, note the term "public accommodations" as if businesses were open to accommodate The People (cue Soviet music), instead of being in business for profit.
Second, notice the attempt to acknowledge some abstract right of employees to work completely without risk, and with an atmosphere of their choosing–not the proprietor’s. Should municipal garbage collectors be ‘free’ to work without risk of traffic? Should roofers be free to work without risk of falls? Should NASCAR drivers be free to work without risk of crashes? Or King Crab fisherman without risk of capsizing?
Finally, the analogy to spoiled burgers just doesn’t hold. People enter into an establishment with an expectation that they will be served uncontaminated food — (nevermind that they accept the risks associated with fat and cholesterol). People may choose to (or not) enter a PRIVATE establishment with a smoking policy chosen by the proprietor and accept the risks of second-hand smoke.
In short: private property rights should be absolute. The risk preferences of people cannot override something so basic as those rights. And just because hundreds of places around the country have done it, doesn’t make it right. To those who would save us? : Deferring to property rights and free choice is always a safe bet on questions of policy.
Thank you for posting this attention-grabbing perspective on the smoking ban that is facing citizens of North Carolina. After living in major cities where smoking is banned in restaurants and other similar establishments, I have grown accustomed to “breathing free” while enjoying either a meal or an adult beverage with friends. Now living in North Carolina, known through out the country and arguably the world as one of the largest providers of tobacco, I never thought that I would hear of a bill reaching the General Assembly regarding a ban on smoking in public areas. So, imagine my surprise when an actual debate occurred. If I understand the conservative approach to the smoking ban, it is to secure and protect the rights of property owners to own and operate a business that offers a smoking section. Conservatives continue to argue that if a state law prohibits a restaurateur from having a smoking session then that law is taking away that property owner’s individual right.
With that said, I find it hypocritical that the same conservative message prohibits same-sex marriage. Is it fair to say that a conservative is more interested in the rights of a property owner than the civil rights of a minority? In addition, I think it is fair to point out that the property rights that we are talking about do not prohibit this entrepreneur from operating their business, simply prohibiting a small minority from polluting an enclosed area with a toxin known to cause numerous illnesses including heart disease and lung cancer. So, I go even further in saying – – is it fair to say that the conservative message is concerned more with a property owner’s right to pollute their enclosed area with deadly toxins than the civil rights of a individual?
I think it is fair to argue the cost and benefit analysis of this comparison. On one hand you have conservative organizations and protectors of individual rights stating that it is fair for property owners to continue to allow smoking in their establishments. With this you have entire bars sans a non-smoking area and other establishments with non-smoking areas backing up to the area reserved for smokers. Now, we all know that non-smoking and smoking areas can be compared to urinating in a swimming pool…neither the urine or smoke will be contained to one area. So, with this right you are contributing to the statistics found from the effects of second-hand smoke – – 35,000 people die a year in the United States of heart disease associated with second-hand smoke, 3,500 a year from lung cancer, 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations and other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function…statistics provided by the American Cancer Society and the United States Surgeon General. Subsequently, these are the costs of the argument…now for the benefit – – which was covered earlier – – the right of the property owner to have a smoking session.
Now, I would like to cover the costs and benefits to allowing same sex marriages. The benefits would be a victory for same sex couples wishing to be recognized by the law, not the church, as their heterosexual peers, a victory to those who are concerned with the fight for civil rights and a victory to those who are concerned with offering identical civil rights to every citizen; one could argue that these principles mirror the foundation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The costs to gay marriage, according to a representative of the Christian Coalition, is simply put “We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we ‘celebrate’ a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports.”
So, with that “logic” we can now make an educational and rational cost and benefit analysis between smoking and same-sex marriage. I ask the reader – – is it fair to say that the conservatives who are more interested in preserving the rights of a smoker over the right of a lesbian to marry, are intermingling their religious viewpoints with matters of the state to the detriment of certain citizen’s civil rights? I believe a true proponent of protecting the rights of individuals from government obstruction is an all or nothing argument, whether it is the rights of a property owner, the right to assemble, the right to vote or the right to marry. Why pick and chose whose rights you would fight for?