I read an article today that made me stop and think. Lawrence W. Reed writing for the Centre for Individual and Economic Liberty discusses his thoughts when first ecountering a smoking ban. Many states have now outlawed smoking in public places, and many Americans (even liberty loving ones) don't think twice about a law that allows them to avoid the rank smell of cigarette smoke. However, as Reed rightly points out smoking bans are statism at its best (or worst depending on how you look at it). From Reed's article:

A few months ago, I walked into a restaurant in Naples, Florida, and said, “A nonsmoking table for two, please.” The greeter replied, “No problem. All restaurants in Florida are nonsmoking by law. Follow me.”For a brief moment as we walked to our table, I thought to myself: “Good. No chance of even a whiff of a cigarette. I like that!”And then I felt shame. I had fallen victim to the statist impulse. For 40 years, I thought I was a passionate, uncompromising believer in the free society. Yet for a few seconds, I took pleasure in government trampling on the liberties of consenting adults in a private setting.This incident troubled me enough to think about it a long while. I wanted to know why my first instinct was to abandon principles for a little convenience. And if a committed freedom-lover like me can be so easily tugged in the wrong direction, what does that say for ever getting nonbelievers to eschew similar or more egregious temptations?

For the last couple of years, Sen. Vivian Figures (D) has introduced legislation in Alabama that would ban smoking in all public places including private offices. My coworkers and I had a discuss a while back on this specific legislation. As Reed encountered, the most common arguement I heard was:

"secondhand smoke harms other unwilling patrons and therefore must be banned"

I argued as does Reed that it is an infringement on the property rights of the owners of the establishments. I suggested they could choose not to patronize restaurants, etc that allowed smoking. Their reply was "but what if I want to go to a place that allows it but I don't want to have to smell smoke." I told her that that falls under the category of tough luck.

I find it interesting that so many freedom-loving conservatives are willing to go along with the smoking bans for their own comfort. I often wonder what happens when the populace finds some other habit it deems abhorent and decides the government needs to outlaw it. The slippery slope is getting icier. Now states like New York are considering bans on trans fat and higher taxes on soft drinks.

As Reed rightly points out, freedom is eroded one small bit at a time. When free people don't kick up a fuss about smoking bans, it sets the stage for the statists to come up with their next public health concern. Kind of reminds you of that old poem by Dr. Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist;Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist;Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew;Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out.

If we desire to remain a free people, we must constantly be on guard against the erosion of our liberty--no matter how small it seems. If we aren't, they will slowly chip away at that freedome until it no longer exists. So the next time you visit a restaurant with a smoking ban and sigh with relief, I hope you'll think about what it means for the bigger picture. As Reed so eloquently put it:

Societies rise or fall depending on how civil its citizens are. The more they respect each other and associate freely, the safer and more prosperous they are. The more they rely on force — legal or not — the more pliant they are in the hands of demagogues and tyrants. So resisting the statist impulse is no trivial issue.

Tags: liberty, statism, legislation, smoking bans