This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Jenna Ashley Robinson, campus outreach coordinator for the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.
When North Carolina first suggested banning smoking in bars, some critics used reductio ad absurdum arguments to show that once lawmakers start taking away property rights on “public health” or “welfare” grounds, there was no telling where we could end up. Some writers parodied the situation by proposing outlandish bans that the state might consider next.
Critics of the ban joked, “What next? No loud music at concert venues? No smelly perfumes at the mall?” After all, loud music might damage listeners’ ears — and some shoppers may be allergic to strong fragrances. If bureaucrats and politicians can ban smoking, why not other legal activities that may annoy or irritate some people?
The smoking ban’s defenders said such arguments were ridiculous — smoking is a special case because of the supposed dangers (and public costs) of secondhand smoke.
But last week, Wake County proved smoking ban parodists correct. According to the News & Observer, Wake County food safety officials, citing their interpretation of state policies, started telling restaurants that dogs are no longer allowed at outside tables.
The News & Observer points out that the provision that local and state officials cite as their authority for banning dogs is contradictory. The first sentence says, “live animals shall not be allowed in a food preparation or storage area,” which doesn’t appear to exclude animals from dining areas.
But officials cite an exception to the rule that allows “service animals accompanying persons with disabilities in areas that are not used for food preparation.” They interpret the exception to mean that nonservice animals are excluded from dining areas — both inside and outside.
Amid an uproar from Wake County citizens and dog lovers, Scott Warren, the Wake County attorney, issued a reprieve for the banished canines: “As written, it’s my opinion that the primary intent [of the rule] is to keep animals out of kitchen areas where food is prepared, and out of pantry areas where food is stored. And so … the restaurant decides for itself whether or not to allow dogs on patio areas.”
But why wasn’t there any such uproar against the smoking ban?
This law, just like the recent smoking ban, allows some people to enforce their preferences on others, whether it’s to drink and dine smoke-free or dog-free. But why is such a policy necessary? If some people don’t want to deal with dogs, they have incredible freedom to avoid them — they can choose restaurants that don’t allow dogs, or simply sit inside. (Similarly, nonsmokers have plenty of options. There are currently 585 smoke-free bars and restaurants in Wake County alone.) Of course, that would mean they might have to make trade-offs they don’t like. It’s much easier to demand that government enforce their preferences than to give up eating on their favorite restaurants’ patios.
The only solution for people with that attitude is to prohibit annoyances — starting with smoking and dogs — everywhere, so that their preferences can be accommodated. With such mindsets prevalent among regulators and some consumers, many “absurd” laws feared by smoking ban opponents might become reality. One News & Observer reader wondered why regulators are focused on dogs instead of ants, mosquitoes, and flies. Others commented that screaming children are far more annoying than dogs. Shall we ban them next?
Of course, it’s unlikely that the same people who supported the ban on smoking are supporting the ban on dogs. Last week, I heard many irate dog owners employ the arguments about private property that they rejected during the smoking ban debate: the restaurant owner, they say, should be allowed to decide whether dogs are welcome.
Sorry, dog lovers, but you can’t have it both ways. Either restaurants are “public spaces” where we expect the government to meddle — or they are private property where only the owners make decisions about what kind of behavior to allow, whether it’s smoking, eating foie gras, or enjoying dinner with your four-legged friends. If restaurateurs are free to welcome dogs, whose dander is an allergen that affects some people, they should also be free to welcome smokers — whose secondhand smoke causes far fewer problems than alarmists claim. Allowing property owners to make decisions about their own restaurants, businesses, and homes is the only way we can avoid the slippery slope that leads to regulations on all facets of our lives.
For now, the dogs are safe. But N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper will likely have to settle the question at the state level. Unless citizens demand that government respect property rights, Cooper will have to make his decision based solely on the confusing and contradictory language in the law.
Without clear protections for private property, we can expect more bans in the future. Next time, regulators might target you.