RALEIGH – Two-thirds of North Carolina adults are wrong, and I am right. Sure, I feel good about that.
The topic is smoking bans. According to the latest Elon University poll, nearly two-thirds of responding North Carolina residents (not registered or likely voters, by the way) said they supported state legislation to ban smoking in “public places,” which were defined as offices, restaurants, bars, and government buildings. A similar percentage said they disagreed with current state policy that prohibits local governments from enacting their own smoking bans.
I am not a smoker. I am not a smoking-related-illnesses skeptic. I’ve been uncomfortable in a few restaurants over the years that were small and full of puffers. But I just can’t see why freedom of choice is not the proper solution to conflicts between individuals with different smoking preferences.
The aforementioned Elon poll provides plenty of evidence for the existence of strong market incentives to satisfy the preferences of nonsmokers. Asked if they preferred to patronize eating and entertainment establishments that banned smoking, 60 percent of respondents said yes. That means, of course, that there is a substantial minority who either doesn’t much care about smoking policies are, themselves smokers, prefer to have the option of lighting up while out on the town. In all except the very smallest of hamlets, there is plenty of room for competing businesses to satisfy these demands simultaneously, without misusing the coercive power of government to restrain the freedom of entrepreneurs and consumers.
When I previously made this argument here, I got a number of responses asking the same question: what about the interests of workers at restaurants, service industries, and other businesses? Don’t they have a right not to be exposed to tobacco smoke?
They have a right to make a smoke-free workplace an important consideration in pursuing employment opportunities. They have a right to join with fellow employees to seek favorable and fair treatment from their employers and customers. They do not, however, enjoy the right to dictate the rules to fellow citizens whose own freedoms are at stake. In the vast majority of cases, respecting freedom of choice will yield satisfactory outcomes for the vast majority of people. The fact that in a few instances workers in places allowing smoking may have to seek other employment, given practical realities or the intransigent short-sightedness of their employers, does not create a moral claim to the use of physical force, via state legislation, to resolve the problem.
Unfortunately, many North Carolinians – many Americans – do not share this commitment to respecting individual rights. Whether through impatience, intolerance, or inadequate consideration of the issues involved, they are willing to countenance the abrogation of liberty to get what they want, be it a smoke-free private business or some other good. It’s funny how so many self-styled civil libertarians complain about governmental intrusions on procedural rights, such as the freedom to speak or protest, and yet seem not to care much about governmental intrusions on even more basic rights, such as the freedom to act (as long as your actions do not, through force or fraud, deprive others of the same right).
In this case, many will respect the right of smokers and business owners to speak out against proposed smoking bans. But they will not respect the right to smoke, or to run one’s private business as one sees fit.
I am proud to count myself among the minority who see things differently.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.