Tomorrow I leave Illinois to go to Iowa for a week or so, so I’ll miss the magical day of January 1, when by law all public places in Illinois will begin to bar smoking.
Many libertarians are against smoking bans, believing that the free market should decide whether to ban smoking (if people don’t like smoke, they won’t go to the restaurants/bars that have it, and if enough people stay home, the owners will take it upon themselves to ban smoking, is how the logic goes).
As for me, I don’t smoke and I don’t particularly appreciate those who do. I’ve often found myself– outside– coughing and getting sick from someone smoking 10 feet away, so I really can’t stand cigarette smoke, and since my grandma died of emphysema, I have a vested interest in an anti-smoking position for myself and everyone I know. I can understand how the free market could be involved in smoking bans, but…
Studies have shown that any amount of secondhand smoke increases cancer, which means that kids going to a restaurant, even when sitting in the non-smoking section, are automatically upping their risk of cancer simply due to the smokers’ presence. I think the only role of government should be to attempt to protect citizens from harming each other, and this is one case in which I think that could be useful. Just as the government outlaws murder, why should it not outlaw something which someone else is doing to you (without your permission) that is increasing your risk of death?
I don’t think smoking bans are the worst thing due to my personal preference for them, but I also realize that it’s a step in the direction of people saying, “Solve my problems for me, Government, do whatever you want with all this power I will give you.” I really, really don’t like that direction. Smokers also have now developed a tendency (as seen in New York City) to stand and smoke outside the doors of the establishments in question, which forces you to walk through their smoke anyway if you want to go in or out (although the Illinois law does deal with this problem by banning smoking within 15 feet of entrances as well). On the other hand, if this happens to you, you don’t have to attend these places and can stay home. Should the government really intervene? I’m not sure what to think about smoking bans.
Tags: Illinois smoking ban, statewide smoking ban, smoking ban libertarian
People rarely consider that when someone is smoking they are _burning_ something. So all you have to ask is, should people be allowed to just burn crap wherever they want to? I’m pretty sure if I walked into a restaurant and set fire to a bowl of leaves, I’d be kicked out pretty quickly.
Dale
December 27th, 2007
Isn’t the basic libertarian concept “if it doesn’t hurt anyone but yourself it should be legal.” Over simplified sure but there is too much evidence suggesting that smokers are hurting other people, thus the need for government intervention. It’s when they threaten to make it illegal to smoke in your own home that we really need to worry.
Matt
December 27th, 2007
It’s clear to me that people do have a right to smoke if they choose, but only to the limit of not violating or infringing on my rights.
Someone smoking in a restaurant or other public place is clearly violating my right to breathe clean air.
I have the inalienable right to clench my fist and forcefully extend my arm. In a functional society (ie. living and getting along with others), I lose that right if your nose happens to be in the way.
As a Libertarian I see no conflict and suffer no anguish from this perspective.
We do have courts to adjudicate infringed rights and to pass laws to protect rights of citizens.
Be clear in your own thinking that simply because Libertarians want minimal government in all areas, we don’t need to acquiesce to others who infringe our rights.
Libertarian Dude
ken
December 27th, 2007
Sorry, but I think you’re looking at this the wrong way. It isn’t the patron’s rights (smokers or non-smokers) that are being violated–it’s the business owner’s rights.
If a business owner goes and spends several hundred thousand dollars to open a business, why should the government have the right to tell that person what they can and cannot allow in their establishment? It’s sort of like saying, you can smoke in your own home, but not if you’ve got guests visiting.
It’s long past time for property owners to re-establish their right to use their property the way they want.
Marco
December 27th, 2007
We should just let our government decide what’s best for us and our children. HA!If you believe that get used to no salt;meat,cars,guns,alcohol,gambling,contact sports,reading…etc.What’s a couple little freedoms anyway?!
Anotherbrick
December 27th, 2007
Don’t forget that if we were to allow the free market to handle these problems, it is highly probable that advanced smoke filtration systems would be developed such as “air curtains” which segregate different areas of restaurants from each other. I personally do not smoke and do not like the smell but I am more than happy to vote with my dollars and not frequent establishments where I am made to sit amongst smoke. Actually I can’t remember many times where I have had to endure smoke. The worst times are probably outside because then I am at the mercy of prevailing winds.
James
December 27th, 2007
I don’t think anyone cares if smokers choose to breathe toxic stuff. The problem is that smokers dump combustion effluent (including irritant and carcinogenic particulates and toxic gases) into the air that other people breathe.
Strangely, I have never encountered a smoker willing to confine those products to their person, with something like a hood and filter. Bothering others seems to be part of their goals.
There’s a Chinese restaurant down the road. It’s okay-quality and I’d eat there again except for one thing: it’s very small, it has ceiling fans which spread air all around, and it allows smoking. There is a “no smoking” section, but it might as well not exist.
Engineer-Poet
December 27th, 2007
I have also noticed (as a generality) that smokers don’t mind the smoke and seem amazed that anyone else would, either.
Interesting ideas about burning (hadn’t thought of that before) or possible devices such as filtration systems– but wouldn’t those be outrageously expensive for a small business?
The town where I went to college began a smoking ban a few years ago, and prior to that, one local bar had a “Smoke-Free Night” where they didn’t allow smoking. They did huge business on that night. I often wondered why they didn’t just convert to full-time smoke-free. Perhaps non-smokers don’t drink as much as smokers? Does anyone know of a business (non-national chain) that went non-smoking intentionally and has had success with it?
It seems that businesses have refused to do this of their own volition. There are a few restaurants I’ve refused to go to specifically because to get to the non-smoking section, you’d have to walk through the smoking section and you’d reek of smoke when you left. I’m sure I’m not the only one who felt that way, but I know of no non-chain restaurant that voluntarily went smoke-free to test whether they got more or less business.
libertariangirl
December 27th, 2007
Marco hits the nail on the head. Libertarian view = it’s up to the business. It’s my property, and if I want to let people smoke in my establishment, that’s my business. If you don’t like smoke, don’t give me your business. If enough people don’t like it, I will either change my policy or work on creative ways to solve the problem so that it works for both groups. But I am more inclined ($$$) and for that matter free to find that creative solution than a government bureaucracy.
Also, it’s going to be easier for you to organize and petition me as a business owner than your government as a nanny.
To see this in action, write a complaint to your congressman about a law that you don’t agree with, then write a letter to a business that you regularly patronize about a policy or incident that you don’t agree with.
See which one writes you back first. For that matter, see which one writes you back at all.
hobbit125
December 27th, 2007
I think that smoking in public spaces arguably falls under “creating a nuisance”, which I doubt that many libertarians think is a bogus point of law.
Are you in Illinois just for a few days?
Engineer-Poet
December 27th, 2007
Yes, I’m in Illinois for just a few more hours until I’m off to the frozen tundra of Iowa. It’s amazing the difference a few hours and degrees of latitude can make on the weather.
libertariangirl
December 27th, 2007
Iowa. Spent 6 weeks at Drake U. one summer as a high-school student. Spent most of my time in labs…
I was last there on my way home from a trip which included Craters Of The Moon (Idaho). Weather pushed me south (would have loved to see Yellowstone, but not at night in snow) and wound up stopping just inside the state after covering the distance from Cheyenne on one tank of fuel. Filled up with biodiesel in a little burg with a Danish museum featuring a big windmill.
Engineer-Poet
December 27th, 2007
I never understood why the responsibility for risk was shared by all that matter in this situation, the customer, and the business owner. If a bar changes the front sign to say “… & Smoking Club”, would that not send an apparent logical message. The other aspect is the employee’s if it not acceptable to have employees sign away liabilities, or just make them independent contractors. It only seems like no one has had the balls to try it. The politics of the matter seems rather parental and despotic.
Patrick
December 27th, 2007
I have seen a few windmill-type things…maybe it’s an Iowa thing.
I’m impressed by Iowa, I may make a post about this soon.
libertariangirl
December 31st, 2007
On that trip, I saw a turbine which looked to be in the 30-100 kW class right along I-80. Not part of a farm, more of a display, but interesting nonetheless.
Got pictures, IIRC.
Engineer-Poet
December 31st, 2007
Have we forgotten that buying a cigarette, smoking a cigarette, and or state is collecting taxes on the cigarettes people buy ? I live in Villa Park, illinois. There was just a double murder 5 blocks from me a son killed his mother and father over no money to buy crack. Where are the police on divison street(Villa Park) where they are openly selling, smoking and not paying taxes on illegal drugs…don’t we have anything..let’s say..THE WAR ON ILLEGAL DRUGS to send our police into the steets for instead of sending them out with a messuring tape to see if a smoker is 15 feet away from a public window or door? Get real people, we’ve had enough of or rights tagged don’t you think? Here’s to naked women dancing on a bar in a public place…but don’t smoke a cigarette while watching her!
Debra
January 11th, 2008
OK, Libertarian Girl got a job for me? I am a bartender at a chicago tavern that was just closed today because of the smoking ban. I am struggling to make it as it is my friend and that job fit my schedual to go to school. I ca forget about all that now, guess it’s public aid for DEE DEE,see how that makes you sick and bothers your poor little nose while YOU are putting me threw school and paying my bills.”I care for kids, families, the sick and the elderly, working class, middle class, and every American. To end poverty and advance the American Dream, I am Libertarian Girl.”
DEE DEE
January 11th, 2008
Actually, Debra, I agree with you– I think that police often have their priorities out of wack in regards to enforcement– but I think they should be concentrating more on murders rather than drugs necessarily (although drugs being illegal does cause a lot of violence and the US’s high rate of gun crime.)
Dee Dee– your situation is exactly why I’m on the fence about the smoking ban. It does have economic consequences, and no one addresses that. What is the name of the Chicago tavern that was closed down? I’d like to do a follow-up post.
There is absolutely no other tavern in Chicago where you could work? Don’t most welfare programs require some sort of work component?
libertariangirl
January 11th, 2008
Also, on an additional note, another factor in the tavern shutting down probably involved the government regulations that any small business– and especially one that sells alcohol– must deal with, increasing every year. It can’t have helped, anyway. Libertarians are against most government regulations such as these, as unhelpful and against the free market.
Occupational licensing is another huge burden for the poor who would like to start their own business– it’s costly and burdensome and regressive for those who need to be self-supporting the most (and want to be the most!)
libertariangirl
January 11th, 2008
The tavern was not closed down for any other reason then the owner himself sold the business to another owner because of the fear of loosing all that he put into it. I know my tips for the last week and a half hurt from last year. You must be very young my dear, there are not a lot of jobs out there for women over 45 in the restaurant business and then try to work in school. So, Where did you hear you have to have a job to be on public aid??? I really do hope you never find yourself in my situation…even the best of the best can be out of a job. DEE DEE
DEE DEE
January 12th, 2008
Well, unemployment is not a form of welfare (everyone pays for it when they’re employed) but I believe it does require looking for another job, and welfare does require you to find a job after at least a few years– weren’t those Bill Clinton’s reforms? So if you are using either of those, job seeking is a necessary component.
I know plenty of people on public assistance. For the most part, they would not be in a libertarian society, because there would be more jobs, more money for them to spend for not having to pay taxes, and a freer society where people could start their own businesses much easier. I don’t have a problem with you, if that’s what you’re implying. It seems like you’d like to have a job, but it’s difficult to find one. Blame it on the current form of government, not libertarians. If we had our way with society, you’d be able to have your pick of jobs and be able to keep all of it for yourself.
I know the details of one particular woman, who had to qualify for welfare on three different counts– income, being a widow, and being a senior citizen. It’s not as easy as some might think, at least in all places. Perhaps it’s different in Chicago. She also would like to work as a hairstylist like she previously did, in her home, but the license fees, business fees, taxes, and other government regulations and restrictions keep her from doing so. I’m sure there are plenty of people on public aid who are in the same situation.
That’s what I want to help with. I’m not sure why you’re thinking that that’s a negative thing.
libertariangirl
January 12th, 2008
Well, it is from a different point of view anyway.
John Smith
January 14th, 2008
There is also Congressman Ron Paul’s Tax-Free Tips Act, which would allow any worker who gets paid in tips to take them away completely tax-free.
That probably would have helped Dee Dee out. Link here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=949
Call your member of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor the bill. And support Ron Paul for President, of course!
Theresa
January 15th, 2008
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Welcome to a Smoke-Free Illinois, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
Daniel
January 18th, 2008
[...] an interesting note, Ryan Somma points out that not a single person at the conference smoked. Hmm. Perhaps scientists are smarter than the general public at large! Care to see a scientific [...]
Libertarian Girl » Blog Archive » NC Science Blogging Conference 2008
January 22nd, 2008
Engineer Poet:
So if something falls under your personal definition of “creating a nuisance” then you are okay with government regulation of that something?
And this is what you are passing off as libertarianism?
Fantastic.
hobbit125
February 6th, 2008
Not speaking for Engineer Poet, but “creating a nuisance” would be a problem if it interfered with someone else’s rights and private property rights– you’re having a party at 3am and the neighbors are trying to sleep, for instance.
That particular example doesn’t seem to apply, though, if it’s just a restaurant that allows smoking. It could possibly be argued that within the restaurant, someone has a right to their own booth space as “promised” by the restaurant– I’ve noticed some smokers who simply do not know or care to direct their smoke in a different direction other than a non-smoker’s face.
But, pretty much everything someone could do would be declared a nuisance by someone, so it gets kind of murky…
libertariangirl
February 6th, 2008
[...] is a clear case of, as with smoking bans, governments thinking that they know better than entrepreneurs how to run a private business. [...]
Libertarian Girl » Blog Archive » Mississippi to Restaurants: Don’t Serve the Obese
February 10th, 2008
You’re not a pure libertarian.
Public land is also mostly anti-libertarian, but the government should be able to within reason do what they want to public land.
Private property shouldn’t be interfered with, a true libertarian doesn’t even outlaw people smoking crack and booting heroine in their on their own property.
Kyle
June 16th, 2008
very interesting post.. im definately coming back for more!
micheal
August 6th, 2008
The article is really very very good. According to me smoking is really a very bad and dangerous habit.It cause harm to the person who is smoking as well as the other persons who are around him.
lauran
September 29th, 2008