RALEIGH – At the risk of giving them another bad idea, I’d like to pose this question to legislative advocates of a smoking ban in all North Carolina restaurants: why aren’t you proposing to ban smoking in any private residence where children live?
The crudest argument for tobacco regulation is straight-out paternalism – government should tell you what to do with your own body. But not wanting to look like Big Brother, or at least like their own uptight parents, tobacco prohibitionists typically make other arguments for a smoking ban in restaurants.
First, they argue that restaurant patrons shouldn’t be forced to breathe in harmful tobacco fumes against their will. Fine, we agree. The General Assembly should repeal any laws forcing North Carolinians to enter a smoky restaurant.
Second, prohibitionists argue that restaurants that ban smoking on their own premises do even-better business than smoke-filled restaurants do, so prohibition would help the restaurant industry by encouraging non-smokers to go out to eat. But there’s nothing stopping restaurants from advertising their smoke-free status to attract diners. If it’s in their economic interest, government compulsion is unnecessary.
Obviously, some diners want to be able to smoke, and some restaurant owners want to cater to them. Prohibitionists want to overrule the clearly stated interests of both groups. They shouldn’t pretend to care about the bottom line of the affected businesses or the preferences of smokers.
Third, prohibitionists argue that even if restaurant patrons aren’t truly forced to enter smoking establishments, restaurant workers really have no choice. With jobs being scarce, this argument goes, employees can’t realistically leave and find work in a non-smoking establishment. Nice try, but restaurant workers routinely quit their jobs to pursue other employment, even now, for all sorts of reasons. One shouldn’t make an empirically based argument for which there is scant empirical data.
Fourth, prohibitions make an argument about precedent. Because government already inspects restaurants for food safety, occupational safety, and compliance with building and fire codes, it’s no great leap for government to forbid unhealthy behavior on the premises such as smoking, they say.
But even if one grants the legitimacy of all these other forms of regulation, they are clearly distinguishable from a smoking ban. Food-safety inspections are typically justified on the grounds that restaurant patrons have no practical basis for evaluating health risks because they can’t see into the kitchens and don’t have access to sanitation records or ingredient information. Similarly, occupational-safety laws are typically justified on the grounds that workers lack both the information and the bargaining power to ensure that they are not subjected to excessive risks at the workplace. As for building and fire codes, not only do government officials advance the lack-of-knowledge argument, but they also point to the risks that unsound structures impose on neighboring ones. You may not mind subjecting yourself to a dangerous collapse or fire, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to subject neighbors to such risks.
Not a single one of these potential justifications applies to smoking bans. There’s no lack of patron or worker information to redress – a restaurant either allows smoking or it doesn’t, and the policy is either clearly marked or immediately evident. Nor is it reasonable to assert that a restaurant that allows smoking imposes any significant environment hazard on a neighboring business or residence. As for the health risks of smoking, they are also widely known – indeed, the public generally overestimates the cancer risk – and warnings are printed on each pack of cigarettes.
Finally, prohibitionists offer the argument that because smokers are covered by Medicare and Medicaid, they impose significant financial cost on taxpayers. There are two problems with this assertion. First, if true, it proves too much. Logically, if socialized health insurance justifies paternalism, then government should also tell people what they can eat, force them to exercise, police their sexual behavior, ban certain sports and hobbies, and regulate how much time people spend watching TV or surfing the net. That’s Big Brother, Big Sister, Big Momma, and Big Nosey Neighbor all rolled into one. Thanks but no thanks, Ivan.
The other problem with the assertion is that it is false. The mortality rate of smokers and non-smokers is equivalent – 100 percent. A true accounting includes the public-sector costs of treating smoking-related illnesses, the public-sector cost of treating the other illnesses that we will all eventually die of, and the net public-sector costs of Social Security and other government entitlements and programs. I encourage people I love not to smoke because I don’t want to lose their company prematurely, not because I think they cost me and other taxpayers money. They don’t.
Now, I’ll circle back to my original point about banning smoking in private homes with children. Obviously, children are not making a choice about whether to live with parents who smoke. They are exposed to far more secondhand smoke than the occasional restaurant patron or even a restaurant worker breathes in. And government regulators typically impose a higher health and safety standard for children than they do for adults.
So, smoking-ban proponents, why not ban tobacco in homes first? Does it feel too creepy? It should. As of this week anyway, we still live in a free society.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation