by Selwyn Duke
...is what I am, when I hear proposals like the one New York City's Mayor Bloomberg made recently. He has introduced strict anti-smoking legislation that would have the Big Apple join the ranks of California and Delaware, as jurisdictions where smoking is banned in virtually all "public" places. This proposal is very popular and will almost definitely become law; after all, most people don't like inhaling other's cigarette smoke. Second-hand smoke is malodorous; it stinks up your clothing and it can stuff up your nose. Yes, the man on the street seems to feel that the rights of non-smokers should supercede those of smokers, and even many smokers feel it's a good idea. And that's just how this issue has been framed: as being one of the rights of smokers versus the rights of non-smokers. And that's where we make a grave, grave mistake.
Opposition to such measures is so unusual nowadays, that I suppose many of you think I smoke like a chimney; that I peck away at the keyboard with a dirty ashtray containing 27 cigarette butts on my left and a pack of Pall Mall and a box of matches on my right. Truth be known, I grew up with a father who was a chain-smoker during my formative years and it caused a lot of discord in our home. I myself have smoked only one cigarette in my whole life and it didn't hold any appeal for me whatsoever. But while I'm not addicted to that noxious leaf, I do have a different addiction: to freedom.
"What!," some of you will say, "What about MY freedom to not have to inhale pollutants spewed into the atmosphere by others?" Well, this brings me back to what I was saying earlier about how we have instinctively framed this issue. We Americans are very concerned about securing people's legitimate rights, but we often forget that before you can determine what rights people should have, you have to understand the principles that govern these matters. Because we don't, we believe that this issue boils down to the rights of non-smokers vs. those of smokers, as I said - but that has nothing at all to do with it. The operative principle here should be that of private property rights. It is the OWNERS of these establishments who have the moral right to determine whether or not to allow smoking. It is THEIR rights that should take precedence, for these people have paid for these places with their own money - created them by the sweat of their own brow. For the government to tell them what policies must prevail within THEIR own places is nothing less than tyranny. This is why I placed the word "public" in quotation marks in the second sentence of this piece: the places in question aren't really public; rather, they are privately owned establishments that allow the public to enter their doors. And, calling these places public is not only incorrect, it is also very destructive, because it lends moral legitimacy to the act of stripping away property owner's rights and imposing other's values on them through the iron fist of government.
Unfortunately, many people are so blinded to their allegiance to certain agendas and ideas, and some anti-smoking zealots are in this category, that even a compelling argument won't deter them from embracing an unjust cause. So, I'd like to paint a scenario and pose a question. Now, I'm sure most everyone understands that I have a right to include in or exclude from my home whomever I please. So, that means I can choose to allow only non-smokers, only smokers, or both to enter my abode. Ok, then why should I lose that right simply because I decide to erect a few more tables and sell food for money? Tell me why, and I don't want to hear legalistic answers about a judicial fiat issued by an ignorant judge who sought to justify tyranny by labeling our property "public accommodations" - I want to know what gives someone the moral right to rob me of my private property rights. And, if anyone would still ask at this point when the rights of my patrons would enter into the equation, I can answer that very easily: they have the right to choose whether or not they're going to patronize my establishment. No one would be putting a gun to their heads - I just ask that others not put a gun to mine.
What is so ominous about anti-smoking legislation, is that like most other legislative measures it isn't simply a separate and distinct issue that has no bearing on anything else - it is part and parcel of a larger, systemic threat to freedom. It must be remembered that the mistaken principle that allows this to take hold is that which states that the government has a right to dictate to private entities what policies they MUST adopt. Because this has become a basic assumption in Western governance, we now are at the mercy of an ever more intrusive, oppressive Big Brother. And make no mistake about it - ALL our freedoms are in jeopardy. This is the mentality that has led to quotas, imperious judges telling private entities what the composition of their workforce must be like, federal bureaucracies dictating to schools what kinds of programs and curricula they must offer and countless other transgressions against freedom.
We should bear in mind what we're gravitating toward when we allow a blurring of the distinction between the public and private sectors. A lack of respect for private property rights has been a hallmark of totalitarian regimes throughout the ages - nations that do not preserve these rights cannot be said to be truly free. This is why we must oppose all legislation that infringes upon them, even that which we believe constitutes "a good idea" - even if it targets a nasty habit we abhor. If we don't, we are part of the problem, and shouldn't be surprised when our countrymen decide that outlawing a freedom we cherish is "a good idea." Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
