Machan's Archives: Coping with Smoking
Tibor R. Machan
Laws forbidding business proprietors from permitting smoking
in their offices, cinemas, aircraft, stores, etc. are now legion. But such
government-mandated prohibitions ignore the rights of those who don't mind
smoking as well as those who wish to live in a tolerant society.
No doubt, smokers can be annoying. They even may be harmful
to those around them. One need not dispute these contentions to still be
concerned with their rights.
In most cases, anti-smoking ordinances aren't limited to
public places such as municipal courts. If the government confined itself to
protecting the rights of nonsmokers in bona fide public areas, there would be
nothing wrong with the current trend in legislation.
Instead of such a limited approach, however, government has
embarked upon the full regimentation of people's choices concerning smoking.
The government has decided to bully smokers, regardless of whether they violate
anyone's rights or merely indulge with the consent of others.
People suffer many harms willingly. And in a society that
respects individual rights this has to be accepted. Boxers, football players,
nurses, doctors, and many other people expose themselves to risks of harm that
comes from others' behavior. When this exposure is voluntary, in a free society
it may not be interfered with. The sovereignty of persons may not be sacrificed
even for the sake of their physical health.
Individuals' property rights are supposed to be protected by
the Fifth Amendment. Not unless property is taken for public use -- for the
sake of a legitimate state activity -- is it properly subject to government
seizure. By treating the offices, work spaces, and lobbies of private firms as
if they were public property, a grave injustice is done to the owners.
When private property comes under government control,
practices may be prohibited simply because those who engage in them are in the
minority or waver from preferred government policy. Members of minority groups
can easily lose their sphere of autonomy.
There is no need, however, to resort to government
intervention to manage the public problems engendered by smoking. There are
many cases of annoying and even harmful practices that can be isolated and kept
from intruding on others. And they do not involve violating anyone's right to
freedom of association and private property.
The smoking issue can be handled quite simply. In my house,
shop, or factory, I should be the one who decides whether there will be
smoking. This is what it means to respect my individual rights. Just as I may
print anything I want on my printing press, or allow anyone to say whatever he
or she wants in my lecture hall, so I should be free to decide whether people
may smoke on my property.
Those displeased by or who object to my decision need not
come to my
facilities. If the concern is great and the opportunity to work in a
given
place is highly valued, negotiations or contract talks can ensue in
behalf of
separating smokers from nonsmokers. In many cases all that's needed is
to bring
the problem to light. Maybe the firm's insurance costs will be
inordinately
high where there is smoking, or maybe a change in policy will come about
because customers and workers are gradually leaving.The issue of smoking
may not undermine the far greater issue of individual, including
private property, rights.
In some cases a conflict about this matter may go so far as to involve tort
litigation. Exposing employees to serious dangers that are not part of the job
description and of which they were not warned may be actionable. But what the
company does initially at least must be its decision. And the onus of proof in
these cases must be on those who claim to have suffered unjustified harm.
Clearly, smoking isn't universally bad. For some people it
may be O.K. to smoke, just as it could be O.K. to have a couple of drinks or to
run five miles a day. For others, smoking is very harmful to their health. In
either case, health may not be the highest good for many people. All things
considered, even those whose health suffers may wish to smoke. In a free society,
people are free to do what is wrong, so long as they don't violate the rights
of others.
In a free and pluralistic society, it isn't necessary to
appoint the government as the caretaker of our health and the overseer of our
interpersonal negotiations concerning how we best get along with each other.
