Smoking ban infringes on private property rights
The Minnesota state wide smoking ban that went into place on October 1st was yet another example of government intrusion into the rights of its private citizens. Many people are in favor of the ban because they do not smoke. I am one of those people. It is a nice convenience that when I go to a bar I am able to leave without smelling of an ashtray.
However, the fact that this ban is convenient to me does not mean that it is right for the government to ban a legal product on someone else's private property. Personal convenience does not excuse a breach of property rights. If a bar or restaurant owner wants to allow smoking inside of his or her own establishment, it should be their choice and their choice only.
If a person wants to take their family out to dinner in a smoke-free environment, there are plenty of places that do not allow smoking. Everybody has the right to choose how they handle their property and how they live their lives. If a restaurant or bar owner wants to allow smoking, it should be their choice. If a customer wants to eat at a smoke-free restaurant or one that allows people to smoke, they certainly have that choice.
Waiters, waitresses, and bartenders have the choice to work wherever they please; and if the secondhand smoke becomes too much to handle, they can seek employment elsewhere. The key here is that anyone should have the right to choose what to do with their own property assuming that the choice they make does not infringe on anyone else's inalienable rights; allowing smoking in one's own establishment does not infringe upon anyone's inalienable rights.
One of the arguments against an enforced smoking ban is that it could cost certain bar owners precious revenue. Because Wisconsin is one of the states that do not have a smoking ban on the books, some bars across the border may be able to attract business from Minnesota. If a smoker wishes to go to a restaurant to enjoy a cigarette, he may be apt to travel the extra few miles to Wisconsin.
Another strong argument against the Minnesota smoking ban is that it is something of a slippery slope. There are now 35 states across our nation that enforces some form of the smoking ban. There are even some states that ban smoking outside in certain areas. If the government can tell a private business owner that they cannot allow smoking in their establishment, what else can they do? Where will this lead us in the future?
The slippery slope argument is not the strongest argument because it does not admit wrongdoing, but only potential for wrongdoing. However, the fact is that a smoking ban violates a property owner's right to choose how to use his or her own property.
Property rights must be protected, not infringed upon so a few members of congress can display the health statistics that were impacted by this ban while they are running for their next election. It is wrong that the government tells people what they can and cannot do with their own property.
Comments
Post new comment