The Virginia Smoking Ban Blog

Voter preference is irrelevant in smoking ban issue

That 65% of Virgina voters would prefer a public ban on smoking is not relevant to the issue the Virginia House faced this week - Governor Kaine’s proposed comprehensive smoking ban.

Just as they did yesterday, our representatives have in the past decided again and again that a smoking ban is not right for Virgina. These representatives are supposedly acting in concert with the beliefs of the people they are representing. As such, our lawmakers have decided that their body of constituents do not want a ban, or that too many would consider a ban unjust. Ultimately, then, a poll is not relevant on issues such as this since representation is in effect, and representation speaks louder than voter appeals. If our representatives really believed the voters wanted a smoking ban, they would enact one or otherwise be subject to a backlash during the next election. Slavery was not repealed because a majority of Americans opposed the practice, it was abolished because Lincoln and other members of Congress decided it was the right time to do so.

The bigger problem at hand is the assumption that if there is a clear majority on an issue then it is the correct, just, and moral decision to make, with no consideration of the repercussions of injustice on the other end. In other words, proposing these poll figures also presupposes the assumption that smoking bans are completely just, if only for the reason that the majority of voters believes so. Concurrently, an environment without smoking bans in effect is unjust.

This is a depraved stance, and is only a continuation of the redundant rhetoric of ban advocates. They use the poll in an attempt to prove that they are irrevocably right, when in fact their stance is one-sided and unilateral. As it exists in Virginia right now, there is a duality of establishments. That is to say, patrons may choose to go to a smoking or a non-smoking restaurant or bar (choice is especially prevalent in the Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Charlotte areas). Ban advocates would have our society be unipolar. They would take away the liberty of choice that patrons and property owners at this moment retain. They would essentially have our government, acting as our guardian nanny who knows what is better for us than we do, decide that there should be no choice at all; that there should be only one option. Right now approximately 20% of the population smokes tobacco, but 100% of the population has the choice of patronizing either smoking or non-smoking establishments. If Governor Kaine’s measure were adopted, that figure would go from 100% to zero.

Kane proposes smoking ban

According to NBC4.com (”Kaine: Smoking Ban Would Protect Restaurant Workers“, 03/29/07), Governor Kaine has proposed a comprehensive smoking ban that would apply to all restaurants in Virgina. His reasoning is for worker health: “For a lot of employees, it’s not necessarily easy for them to pick up and get another job.” Kane reportedly based his decision on a conversation with a Richmond restaurant owner who told him he wanted to go smoke-free for his employees’ benefit but feared he would lose business to his competitors.

Kane’s proposal marks a turnaround in his rhetoric. He has previously stated that, although he believes smoking is dangerously unhealthy, it was not in the government’s place to enact a ban.

The ban covers virtually any area where food is served. Kaine has convinced himself that his proposed ban would be limited to restaurants only, yet I myself am hard-pressed to recall a bar, wedding, or festival that doesn’t serve food. The Washington Post (”Kaine’s Restaurant Plan Called Too Broad“, 03/30/07) highlights the claims from opponents of this measure, which they assert is so broad that it goes so far as to ban smoking at catered weddings and hot dog vendors. This so-called limited ban is actually so comprehensive that it will envelop dozens of different kinds of establishments beside restaurants — from weddings and hot dog vendors to bars and street festivals. Kaine’s failure to consider the repercussions of his proposal reveals the depravity of this motion.

D.C. Smoking Ban: Struggling bars miss the smokers, their cash

From the Washington Times: Struggling D.C. bars miss the smokers, their cash.

Like every other smoking ban imposed in every other city, bars are getting hit the hardest. Since the ban went into effect in Washington, D.C. on January 1, bars have lost business to their counterparts in Virginia, where no smoking ban is in place and property owners retain the liberty to determine their own orientation. As for what orientation, smoking or non, would be best for their business, many Virginia bar owners close to D.C. have remained smoking, effectively and effortlessly stealing the business from D.C. bar owners whose only crime is having located their business in an area where paternalist legislators reign.

Tainted tobacco money, the American Cancer Society, and ethics

Inside Higher Ed’s article, Calculating the Tobacco Taint highlights an emerging debate: is it ethical for researchers and education institutions to accept money from the tobacco industry?

The debate surfaces from UVA’s recent acceptance of $25 million from Phillip Morris to conduct tobacco research and invest in university programs. The research is seemingly divergent to Phillip Morris’ interests, as $20 million of the funds are going toward a reported breakthrough the university has discovered that will revolutionize teen smoking prevention.

Among the first to stand up in protest is America’s premiere anti-tobacco NGO, the American Cancer Society, which has condemned UVA for accepting the funds from Phillip Morris. “We think it’s inherently wrong that the money, regardless of how much good it’s going to do (emphasis added), is coming from a source that is inherently tainted,” says Jerome Yates, national vice president for research at the ACS, explaining why the group will not give its own research funds to individual scientists who have accepted grants from the tobacco industry. It’s a good thing for them that people don’t take that same approach to the ACS itself, considering that only 69% of all donations are actually spent on programs, leaving some $160 million a year in overhead expenses (and it’s important to note that only a fraction of the money ACS spends on programs actually goes toward cancer research — millions are spent on special interests and lawsuits). Even though CharityNavigator.org rates ACS at less than 25% efficiency, it’s fortunate for the organization that people are still willing to donate their heard-earned money to them, “regardless of how much good it’s going to do.”

New URL — VaSmokingBan.info

This blog has a new domain name, VaSmokingBan.info. You can still access it via the old subdomain, however.

Can libertarians support a smoking ban?

Lamont university professor at Harvard University and Nobel prize winner for economics Amartya Sen wrote a comment for this past Monday’s edition of Financial Times. In Dr. Sen’s essay, entitled Unrestrained smoking is a libertarian half-way house, he criticizes the libertarian arguments against smoking bans, arguing that appeals to liberty do not apply.

Dr. Sen attacks the fundamental freedom of choice and free-will when it comes to smoking. He questions whether “habit-forming behaviour today restricts the freedom of the same person in the future,” and “whether youthful smokers have an unqualified right to place their future selves in such bondage.” Dr. Sen refers to “the leading apostle of liberty,” John Stuart Mill, to attempt to validate his argument. Mill argued, Sen contends, “against a person’s freedom to sell himself or herself into slavery.” Indeed, Mill concluded in On Liberty that “the principle of freedom cannot require that the person be free not to be free.” However, to this affect, Dr. Sen is claiming that tobacco smoking is tantamount to self-imposed slavery, and that Mill would agree with him that a person has no liberty to do so. Speaking of liberty, Dr. Sen believes that society has the liberty to “take the view that [ill smokers] have no claim to public resources”. Although Dr. Sen agrees that this stance would be of “a monstrously unforgiving society,” for society to not take this stance would mean that “the interests of [non-smokers] would surely be affected through the sharing of the costs of public services.”

There is no Constitutional, judicial, or legal right given to smokers in the U.S.. Dr. Sen, however, questions whether or not anyone has the implied right or the sovereignty over themselves to smoke at all. This argument alone (not to mention Dr. Sen’s correlation of smoking to self-imposed slavery) reveals the depravity of his arguments, clearly deep-rooted in necessitarianism.

There is no way around it — smokers cost society. Not only for the negative health issues they inflict, but also for the littering and perhaps even loss of productivity from smoking breaks during work. Smokers especially cost socialist societies and those with universal health care. However, for anyone to propose, even indirectly as Dr. Sen has, that access to heath facilities and “public resources” should or could be denied to smokers is a purely unreasonable and morally bankrupt argument. If public resources are denied to smokers, so will they have to be for the obese. People that don’t wear seat belts and get into car accidents will be denied access to the hospital. AIDS, syphilis, chlamydia, and other STDs preventable with condom use will go untreated. In other words, any activities or behavior that is enacted by choice that can result in a preventable negative impact of society should be completely and unquestionably banned.

Finally, I see little or no relation to libertarian principles in Dr. Sen’s arguments. His thesis argument is that the appeal to liberty does not apply in the case of smoking bans. But the argument that libertarians most often make against smoking bans deals with the rights of the business owner, not the rights of the individual consumer. Dr. Sen never mentions, let alone attempts to rebuke, in his comments any arguments related to property rights or self-determination.

It doesn’t take a libertarian viewpoint, merely a rational one, to observe that Harvard professor and Nobel prize winner Dr. Sen’s arguments hold no water.

Anti-tobacco forces losing ground in this year’s smoking ban battle

According to the Roanoke.com article, Smoking ban battle seems lost, the anti-tobacco coalition led by Senator Brandon Bell has seemingly lost yet again in this year’s battle to impose a smoking ban on the constituents of Virginia.

An attempt to ban smoking in Virginia’s public places, including restaurants and bars, appears to be dead for the year. A House subcommittee declined to take action Thursday on the Virginia Smoke Free Air Act (Senate Bill 1161), leaving the measure technically alive but with its future in doubt.

“Businesses should decide what’s best”

Jonathan McGlumpy of the Collegiate Times has presented a well written article (Businesses should decide what’s best) with some concise arguments. He touches on the rationality of the free will of workers and patrons, as well as the rights of business owners and self-determination.

The Slippery Slope: Vermont considers total ban on all activities (except driving) while driving

From the KSAT 12, San Antonio article, States: Drop The Smokes, Food, Phones And Drive,

Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, “interacting with pets or cargo,” talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.

These lawmakers were reportedly “emboldened” by the passages of cell phone bans in certain communities. This case is an excellent example of the slippery slope of protectionist legislation. Laws - many times reasonable laws - are passed in order to protect the safety of the community. However, protectionism never stops at the line of reason. The implications for the future are that, as the government exponentially enacts protectionist measures, it purges laissez-faire in piecemeal as our freedoms are likewise being dismantled in piecemeal. The situation is only exacerbated by the many Americans today that willingly sacrifice “unalienable” rights for the sake of safety and security. This is especially true since the events of 9/11, where the attacks are now used by the government to justify an invasion of privacy (such as in wiretapping).

Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.” If Franklin is right, then much of America today deserves neither the inherent liberty that our nation was founded upon, nor the security that they sacrifice liberty for.

Wrong again, Senator Bell

“People have the right to smoke. But the right ends when someone is being exposed to smoke against his wishes.”
Senator Brandon Bell (R-Roanoke)

Senator Bell has been quite active in attempting to rally support for the anti-tobacco measure that has been proposed and passed by the Virginia Senate, yet again. As the outspoken patron saint of the smoking ban movement in this state, he proposed the bill last year, which failed unanimously in the House after passing in the Senate. I believe that Senator Bell’s rhetoric and reasoning is fundamentally flawed and thus the anti-tobacco measures he passes should be annulled.

No doctrine, law, or precedent in America gives any person the right to smoke, as Senator Bell would assert. Nowhere in our Constitution are any contituents given an inalenable right smoke tobacco, and nowhere else does it give smokers as a specific, homogeneous group any rights at all. In addition, smokers are not discriminable in the court of law. The Supreme Court defines a group capable of being discriminated against as having “an immutable characteristic determined solely by an accident of birth” (Fronterio v. Richardson, 1973). Tobacco smoking does not fit this description, nor does tobacco addiction.

Senator Bell’s additional claim that this non-existent “right to smoke” ends “when someone is being exposed to smoke against his wishes.” Nowhere in Virginia today is harmful second-hand smoke ever forced on anyone, and to make such a claim is punitively asinine. The bill is aimed at bars and restaurants, places where smoking is allowed by law and chosen by the business owner. Every last one of those places is patronized and staffed by people who choose to enter those facilities on their own intelligent, free will.

If Senator Bell’s rhetoric and reasoning behind imposing a smoking ban on the consumers and business owners of Virginia is ungrounded and defective, this measure based very much on his own designs must once again be annulled by the Virginia House.