Marketplace of Ideas Blog

Gov. James Doyle is expected to sign today the workplace smoking ban the Legislature enacted Wednesday, effective July 5, 2010.

First: Anyone who says the ban is not intended to punish smokers is simply not telling the truth. As Libertarian Party of Wisconsin chairman Jim Maas says, “the rabid smoking-banners have distorted our system of government to suit their zero-tolerance ends. Even though a majority of citizens no longer smoke, they have been led to believe that they are entitled to a vote on when and where others may smoke. … Our system of government was intended to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority. Americans once looked out for the rights of others with the expectation that others would do the same for them. That tradition seems to have been forgotten.”

(Obligatory preface: I do not smoke. Smoking is bad for you; you shouldn’t start smoking, and if you do smoke, you should quit.)

The rush to passing the smoking ban — unlike, say, the speed with which the Legislature is (not) dealing with the state's flood of budgetary red ink — runs over several instances of illogic, in addition to being yet another erosion of personal and business freedom.

The health authoritarians claim that society has the right to restrict smoking because of the cost of smoking on society. That’s a reductio ad absurdum argument whose logic could be applied to, say, requiring that cars not go faster than 25 mph, or requiring licenses to possess sharp objects. (Those of you who served our country in the armed forces might wonder when defense of freedom only went up to a certain dollar figure.) Besides that, for my health insurance, I had to pledge to being a nonsmoker to not get a smoking surcharge, and I have to imagine my employer’s insurer is not the only health insurance company to have devised this smoking penalty.

Perhaps the most common argument is the effect of secondhand smoke on employees of bars and restaurants, accurate or not. Buying this argument seems to require the belief that, for a bar or restaurant, employees are more important — not as important, more important — than customers. (Care to consider the implications of that?)

There are those who claim that the playing field needed to be leveled, so that all taverns and restaurants, not just those in Appleton, Fond du Lac and elsewhere, banned smoking. Of course, one person’s “leveling the playing field” is another person’s “representative democracy.” If, say, citizens of Grand Chute didn’t want a smoking ban in their bars and restaurants, well, go away; your voice isn’t important anymore.

Another argument is that some bar and restaurant owners wanted to enact a ban, but didn’t feel they could, and so wanted the state to do their dirty work. The flip side of that is that some bars and restaurants chose on their own to make themselves smoke-free, but one swoosh of Doyle’s pen today eliminates their competitive advantage. (And I guarantee you that the ban's exemptions, including cigar bars and specialty tobacco shops, will eventually disappear.)

As Tavern League of Wisconsin President Rob Swearingen observed, “I think if we left this thing alone, it may have solved itself. As more and more places went smoke-free, the public would have dictated and we would have ended up with the right mix.”

Others who know nothing about the industry about which they speak claim that bars and restaurants won’t be hurt by the smoking ban; why, they claim, more people have gone out in communities with smoking bans. If true, perhaps that’s because of the aforementioned competitive advantage Doyle will wipe out today — those bars and restaurants are the beneficiaries of their own, or their municipality’s, decision to ban smoking. Those who like a smoke-free atmosphere can go to Appleton, and those who like to smoke can go to Grand Chute. Arguments about employee health are one thing, but there is no accepted study that proves that occasional exposure to secondhand smoke is guaranteed to have deleterious effects on your health.

If, for instance, smoking is really as bad for you as proponents of the ban claimed, why has the Legislature stopped at banning smoking in workplaces? Why hasn’t the Legislature banned smoking everywhere? (Because the state has no authority over private property? When has that stopped state government?) Why hasn’t the Legislature banned the sale of tobacco? (Because that wouldn’t stop out-of-state — realizing that Indian reservations technically aren’t part of the state — purchases of tobacco? Then why did the state bother to increase the cigarette tax?)

Perhaps the better answer to all the aforementioned questions is: Politics. The state wants the millions of dollars it gets from tobacco taxes, or otherwise tobacco would be a thing of the past in this state. Indian tribes, being sovereign nations, are not covered by the smoking ban. No one thought, as part of gaming compact negotiations, to require the tribes to adhere to whatever smoking laws apply to the rest of the state, so the tribes are able to allow (or ban) smoking wherever they want.

Or, suggests poster Jeff Barta, “The real reason why this bad legislation passed is the American people have become lazy and it’s easier for us to look to government to solve our problems than to take on the personal responsibility of our actions. This legislation works for 70% of Wisconsinites because it’s convenient for them. It’s easier than making the choice to stay home when their friends are going out to a smoking environment, it’s easier than standing up and confronting your friends about your wishes, it’s easier than traveling a little farther to enjoy a smoke free environment, it’s easier than sharing your views with the business owner. Unfortunately, this need for ease is done at the expense of all of our liberties. Most people don’t see it because it’s easier not to.”

When is state government going to stop treating taxpayers like little children? You should wear seat belts, so state government passes a law that you have to wear seat belts so that the state can get money from the federal government. (The same blackmail holds true about the drinking age.) Your children should sit in child safety seats in the car, so government passes another law. You shouldn’t smoke, but apparently our elected officials don’t have the guts to ban the use of a legal product, so government passes laws to severely restrict where the legal product can be used, while still collecting high taxes on its use. (Guess what's next.)

And we haven’t even gotten to the unintended consequences that will rear their ugly heads once the ban is passed next July. (If this person’s anger is any example, some legislators may have a harder time than think with their 2010 or 2012 reelection chances. And one medical study suggests that former smokers consume more health care dollars than current smokers.)

“As a tavern owner, I will be fighting back,” says Bill Savage, who also is a legislative aide. “I will be looking to recall anyone I can who votes for a smoking ban in taverns. What else can I do? With four kids coming close to the age where my wife and I are talking about financing college, I cannot afford to have some do-gooder render our family business worthless.”

This ban should not have been passed. Individual businesses — not the state, and not even individual municipalities — should have the right to decide whether they want to allow smoking within their premises. Individuals should have the right to patronize, or not, establishments that allow, or ban, smoking. As of July 5, 2010, that freedom ends.

“Free societies allow people to make decisions that others don’t like,” says Maas. “That includes allowing smokers to choose bars and restaurants which cater to their preferences, just as nonsmokers should have places that cater to theirs. It was once an American tradition.”

“Ultimately what happened is that people lost their rights,” says Swearingen. “It’s another erosion of rights.”