The other day I was sitting in a bar, smoking a much deserved cigarette, when I noticed a "no smoking" sign on the wall. I am a regular at this particular bar and happen to know that smoking is permitted. The bar was clearly preparing for January.
For anyone who hasn't been keeping up with the news, D.C. is scheduled to ban smoking in bars starting Jan. 1. The ban took effect in restaurants over the summer. This ban is an example of the nanny state flexing her newfound powers.
What, you may ask, is the nanny state? The derogatory term was coined during the Reagan administration and refers to state policies that regulate human behavior in a way that is detrimental to individual rights.
So why have smoking bans been categorized this way? Well, my freedom-loving friend, the state has taken away a choice traditionally reserved by the people - in this case workers, consumers and business owners. As it stands now, these groups in D.C. can still exercise a choice about smoking.
This has resulted in a city where the preferences of both smokers and non-smokers are readily available. In fact, the Smoke Free D.C. Web page has published a list of 123 restaurants and bars in the area that went smoke-free by choice. This list doesn't even include bars that have a designated smoking area and an area that is smoke-free, such as Wonderland in Columbia Heights. With all these options, everyone should be happy, right? Wrong.
It isn't enough that non-smokers and smokers have equal rights and that the wants of both are met. The desires of non-smokers should trump the desires and rights of smokers because smoking is unhealthy. The government has invented a new right. You now have the right to be in a smoke-free environment any time you enter a restaurant or bar. Unfortunately, your new "right" directly conflicts with a property owner's right to allow smoking on their property and consequently with a smoker's right to patron establishments that cater to their desires.
So the question becomes: How in a country of freedom-loving individuals did such an outrageous legislation gain support? The answer lies in secondhand smoke studies, around which there is a ridiculous amount of controversy. Proponents of the ban have a stack of studies conclusively proving that a single moment of secondhand smoke exposure will kill babies, grandmothers and family pets in gruesome ways. Opponents of the ban have stacks of studies conclusively showing that locking someone in a hole the size of a toy box with 666 chain smokers for 12,000 years will not adversely affect their health in the slightest.
Clearly, the truth lies between these two extremes. However, this is what everyone seems to miss. The number of options available for people who are concerned about how secondhand smoke may affect their health are practically endless. Anyone even mildly concerned with this issue can easily find bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking, without using government power to legislate a ban.
The ease with which smokers and non-smokers find their restaurants and bars of choice do differ. Smokers are going to have to look a little harder to find restaurants that allow smoking while non-smokers may have to look a bit harder to find appropriate bars. Oh wait, could this possibly be market mechanisms at work? Could it be that, in general, there is a stronger correlation between smoking and drinking than smoking and eating? No, markets couldn't possibly have worked that out all on their little lonesome!
Oh, but they have. If we were living in a world where non-smokers were confronted with smoke-filled air in every establishment and on every street corner I would be more sympathetic to their position. As it stands today, however, the ban is less about giving non-smokers a smoke-free option and more about taking all options away from smokers.
Erin Wildermuth is a senior in the School of International Service and a libertarian columnist for the Eagle.
