Authoritarianism hits home

Where are the same people who protest the PATRIOT Act not up in arms about stuff like this?

The county just south of my hometown will shortly be following New York's example and instituting a smoking ban in all "bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, minicasinos, hotels and most other nontribal businesses in Pierce County," effectively driving all smoking business to the non-taxed entities. Not only does this discriminate against small business in Washington state (tribal entities get all kinds of breaks around here), it actually lowers the county's direct and indirect benefits from taxing tobacco, and by extension its ability to even enforce health regulations.

Today's New York Times article argues that not all businesses have been hurt by the ban on smoking, the kind of evidence that is used to support this legislation in many cities: "Many bar owners and managers say the smoking ban has hurt business, eroding profits and, in some cases, forcing them to cut back hours or lay off workers. Others say they have seen virtually no effect." This should be obvious. Businesses that don't have an environment or pre-existing policy that appeals to smokers won't have a shift in clientele, like the handful of smoke-free bars I live nearby that draw crowds for that very reason. But those who do, will. Our humble Tacoma News Tribune gives a good example.

Nearly 730 businesses in Pierce County licensed to serve food or alcohol on the premises are already voluntarily smoke-free. All of the owners of smoking establishments questioned for this story said they allow smoking because a majority of their customers and employees smoke.

"It's a free market," said Johnson. "And if 85 percent of my customers didn't smoke, I wouldn't allow smoking."

In New York, the ban is also causing problems. Excerpts, with interjections:

Some restaurants and bars say that business is fine — even thriving, as the economy improves — particularly in places where food is a main draw. Further, a vast majority of New Yorkers have said in recent polls that they are happy with the new law. One survey shows that many regular restaurantgoers see a smoke-free environment as an attraction. [Oh, the things the free market could do for them!]

"It's harder to keep track of everybody going in and out," said Chuck Zeilfelder, a bartender at Bourbon Street in Bayside, Queens, who opposes the ban. "It's common for people to leave money on the bar, and that becomes an issue — how much they left. Also, people leave their drinks on the bar and go out. The drinks get thrown out, and then you have to buy them another round on the house."

I have some sympathy for the bar and restaurant workers who supposedly are suffering from the consequences of secondhand smoke (scientifically questionable). But they've chosen their jobs just like miners and construction workers and diplomats on danger pay. We should be trying to make the world safer -- but ultimately you are responsible for your own health, from not eating every holiday cookie in sight to not picking a job where you think you'll be in danger. People should be allowed to weigh the costs and make their own decisions.

If the proud citizens of New York, New York and Tacoma, Washington don't want to smoke or work or hang out in smoking environments, they've got that choice, and capitalism will happily make a way for them -- as it already has. But this legislation is only destructive, not just to businesses, but to people's freedoms and choices. So long as in this country we can smoke and eat ice cream and have office jobs that expand our asses, the government should let us decide for ourselves whether to do so, and the free market will make room for us. By taking away our economic choices, the law is taking away our political freedoms as well. And furthermore, it is doing so unnecessarily, rushing to control a situation that the market is taking care of just as well on its own.