A malodorous anniversary

On this day last year, business owners in the District of Columbia lost the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. It’s also going to be a sad day for many of the French, whose traditional smoky cafes were shut down today too. And while neither of these bans much affects me personally, the Post reports that the new Arlington County Board Chairman is putting anti-smoking measures at the top of his agenda. All in all, this is a lousy day for ban opponents, but it’s a good time to consider how to prevent further losses.

The usual approach to fighting smoking bans has been to emphasize the property rights of bar and restaurant owners, the freedom to smoke a legal substance, and the fact that some businesses will be disproportionately impacted by a ban. These are all valid points. Unfortunately, they almost always fail to persuade. For non-smokers, the cost of imposing their preferences across the board is so low and their disregard for smokers so high that the temptation to ban is irresistible. As the debate comes into Virginia, we defenders of freedom ought to reconsider our strategy.

First, we shouldn’t join the assault on smoking’s terrible image. Sometimes our friends are our worst enemies. Even ban opponents often slip into calling smokers “addicts” with a “filthy habit” for inhaling packs of cigarettes. Rarely does anyone stand up for smoking as a tasteful activity for responsible adults, or for tobacco as an artisinal product full of nuance and expressive of its origins. Wine, beer, liquor, meat, and countless other potentially unhealthy products have tapped into America’s epicurean zeitgeist. There’s no reason tobacco can’t do the same. While we should defend the right of people to smoke whatever they want, we shouldn’t do our adversaries the favor of making chain smokers our poster children.

Second, we should consider ban alternatives. People want smoking bans; like it or not, regulation is the future. We may face a choice between standing on principle and losing or proposing some compromises and preserving a few rooms for smokers to call their own. Especially in places where bans have already passed, it might be worth advocating compromises such as allowing smoking in establishments that pay a tax or purchase a license. This would at least be more efficient than, say, DC’s current bureaucratic hardship exemption and would give smokers more options than they currently possess. It would also provide governments with a financial incentive to keep their hands off smoking businesses, helping to ensure that the choice to allow smoking remains viable.

I am much more comfortable with option one than with option two, but watching the unimpeded march of smoking bans the last few years has me leaning more and more toward viable compromise over crushing defeat.

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (2)