There were a series of letters to the editor in the Evansville Courier Press about smoking and smoking bans. (Here is one.) It made me wonder what the proper libertarian position on smoking and smoking bans might be. Libertarianism generally speaking doesn’t favor restricting the behavior of others, but that’s true only so long as the behavior doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another. So, smoking in an air-tight room on one’s own property presents no problem.
But, the trouble with smoking is that the waste from the behavior is not contained; rather it is imposed on others. To one extent or another – the level is the subject of some disagreement, I suppose – the waste is a carcinogen that could cause health problems for bystanders. Less severe, but still a significant factor in the debate, is the imposition of a foul smell upon bystanders.
Part of the appeal of libertarianism is its elegant simplicity and bright lines. But, in this case I think there is some arbitrary line drawing to be done. Not every offensive smell should subject a person to the awesome power of the goverment. Anti-flatulence legislation, for example, would be going too far. On the other hand, a factory or confined feeding operations belching out fumes that essentially make one’s property unlivable is appropriate because the smell is depriving you of your legitimate enjoyment of your own property. Somewhere between the extremes is a line.
The same goes for subjecting one’s fellow citizen to air with unhealthy properties. Quarantining every person with a cold goes too far, even though they are breathing out air that will make others sick. On the other hand expelling clouds of mustard gas onto your neighbor’s property is prohibited behavior.
So, on which side of these lines does cigarette smoking fall on from the libertarian perspective, and is there a principled reason for its position on one side or the other of the line?
In a Libertarian worldview, it is clear that businesses should have the right to choose whether to allow smoking or not.
The extent to which a ‘negative externality’ (like cigarette smoke or industrial pollution) should be curbed in public is a function of the extent of the damage and the extent to which the govt can monitor it effectively.
To your point, the term “externality” opens up a huge can of worms– since everything we do creates externalities. (E.g., if you have an ugly front door, it harms my property value as your neighbor.) So, to an economist and a libertarian, the size of the externality is key.
So, probably there is no way around having a line drawing problem that is arbitrary to some extent or another.
Libertarians eschew force and fraud. Assault is an act of force that violates the freedom of others.
Rapists give way to indulgence of their personal needs at the expense of unconsenting victims. That is similar to what smokers do when they smoke in public.
No person in any public place should be expected to tolerate unwamted personal behaviors in public. These include spitting, picking your nose, farting, smoking, masturbating and urinating. All these are personal behaviors quite appropriately taking place in your own private space behind closed doors. There should be no demands on others to put up with them in public or expectations that they will be tolerated.
A valid libertarian position is to defend the right of anybody to do anything they like in private at their own expense. Smokers are free to create “nicotine dens” just as Chinatown once had “opium dens.”
Smoking is NOT a “right,” just a personal habit, like picking your nose. Many courts have found this. In public, you have no more “right” to smoke than you have to pick your nose, and your personal bodily wastes are unacceptable when you assume you have some “right” to inflict them on others, from whatever bodily orifice you expel them. Your used waste cigarette smoke is not different from your fart or spit.
Francis’ comment takes us to another distinction: the extent to which a behavior is viewed as a negative, a positive or a neutral. If picking my nose bothers some people, what about wearing a cross around my neck? If some people enjoy hearing me let out a loud burp in public, how do we reconcile that positive with the subjective negative experienced by others?
Again, we’re back to govt in theory vs. practice. Even if we agree that X is a net negative or is commonly seen as a modest negative or…, it does not follow the govt intervention is a net improvement ethically or practically.
I’m all for smoking bans… just being around it makes me sick, but it is an interesting debate. Why smoking and not, say, sneezing which also has the potential for making me sick?
And where does “privacy of your own home” stop and “protection of minors in said home” start?
Re-read Doug’s post – guess that was already covered. Sorry.
So much of habit develops when adults are still ‘under age’. When I was in high school (back in the 50s) kids my age made jokes about smoking ‘cancer sticks’,but our hero,unstated probably, was the Marlboro man,who we could never have guessed was to succumb to cancer as an adult from smoking. And no one had any idea that secondary smoke in a home could cause any problem.
I smoked Tarreytons when I was 17. They were low in tars and safe to smoke,although I can’t say for sure that’s why I chose them,but I was aware of the advertising. We’re often subliminal victims of advertising. . Not only that, we have been victims of rigged testing of dangerous products that would be the advertised as ‘safe’, such as low tar cigarettes,and ‘crash-proof’ bumpers,and safe fruit and vegetables.
I’ve long maintained that we’re more often the victim of private enterprise then we are of government and I have just given a couple of good examples.
The further point is that minors are the gateway to bad habits, and a ssource of long term profit for certain habits, and gov’t as well as parents must be reponsible. I was a ‘good kid’ when I was in teens ,but I did harmful things I kept from my parents that could caused longterm harm.Im hoping for a much larger regulatory role for government to protect consumers.Government has failed us by not writing legislation to control financical institutions from causing consumer harm,as just an example for a whole new category of rampant disregard for consumerism.
Maybe Obama,if elected, will appoint Ralph Nader as head of consumer affairs in his administration..hopeful thinking..I’d never vote for Nader as a 3rd party candidate,but he would be great in a position of authority.
Sixteen years ago this question was already answered in the Twin Cities (actually some time well before then, but that is when I moved there). Boy do I miss those days of not having to worry about not being assaulted by second-hand smoke-unless I went to a bar/nightclub. They even had rules about how far outside an entrance to a building people had to be to smoke; and due to the cliumate, there were smoking shelters built outside of hospitals, etc.
In my view, smokers’ rights end where my lungs begin…and boy is my home state here ass backwards on this one!
I’m gonna settle this “debate”. The proper libertarian view is that nobody– individual or government– has a right to dictate anyone’s smoking habits.
To compare smoking to nose picking is the purest sophistry; The former is harmless, the latter is disgusting.
As a physician, let me take you all the way back to the 1940’s to find a resolution to this argument. Just have everyone smoke Lucky Strikes. “They’re toasted!” to prevent throat and lung irritation.
You’d be amazed at the useful stuff you can learn by reading old Life Magazines at your parents’ house.
Libertarian= lover of liberty?
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Constitution of the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Much has been said of the rights of the antis and the rights of smokers;but, the only rights written about above are certain unalienable Rights such as ‘Liberty’ and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our attainments in our pursuit of happiness, the attainment of which is not a right, only the pursuit is a right, must not come at the expense of others’ ‘LIBERTY’.
In our current nanny state,can’t do, nation, our ‘LIBERTIES’ are being trampled and cast aside to attain others’ happiness.
The United States was not founded on the concept of ‘Rights’;rather, The United States of America was founded on the concept of ‘LIBERTY’!!
Patrick Henry did not say “Give me my Rights or give me death”; rather, Patrick Henry said “Give me LIBERTY or give me death”.
A Creator endowed entitlement to ‘LIBERTY’ should prevail over manmade desires for happiness.
A happiness(breathing clean air) whose definition is purely up to the individual and is subjective and in no way objective should not be put before Liberty.
The supposed health effects of SHS are not proven, you read about people dying in car accidents; but, you never read about deaths proven to be caused by SHS exposure.
Any laws based on the supposed healts effects of SHS exposure are ill-conceived and trample our nation’s LIBERTY!
Both are equally disgusting; the difference being that picking one’s nose serves a useful function. But that’s neither here nor there in terms of what’s appropriate in terms of imposing the might of the government in order to restrain behavior.
I don’t get the unilateral, absolute statement about nobody having the right to restrain someone else’s smoking habits. If you come to my house, be assured I have the right, as well I should, to dictate that you will not smoke in my house.
Presumably liberty is going to take a back seat if someone was uncorking mustard gas next to my property line and letting it drift onto my property. How far from mustard gas and how close to cigarette smoke is the appropriate place for drawing the line?
I guess that means if someone tries to light up in your house, you’ll be taking the liberty of tossing them out the door on their keister.
If you come to my house, be assured I have the right, as well I should, to dictate that you will not smoke in my house.
Presumably liberty is going to take a back seat if someone was uncorking mustard gas next to my property line and letting it drift onto my property. How far from mustard gas and how close to cigarette smoke is the appropriate place for drawing the line?
……………………….
Liberty means that neither I(nor government) have the right to tell you what you should allow in your house or business.
The line is in the proven danger.
If I inhaled any fair amount of mustard gas, I would be having serious problems.
I have smoked for 45 years and do not have serious problems and people exposed to SHS for years probably will not either.
Well, Doug, that’s an interesting observation. If they come into your house and smoke, you assert your right to have them not smoke. Well, why is that? Because it’s your house, and you set the rules, right?
At the same time, if a business owner owns a building, and wishes to invite people to enter and smoke, he doesn’t have the right to do that. He’s an owner just the same as you, but his right is now gone. In fact, now he has to throw out the smokers that he might have preferred to invite inside.
The libertarian objection has to do with the elimination of the right of the property owner.
I think it would have gone far enough to require property owners to post signage on the door with regard to smoking policy. The would-be patron could read the sign and make an informed decision, and allows the property owner to continue to have the right to dictate policy on his property- just as you do.
I have the right to breath clean air. Most smokers cannot read signs that clearly state “do not smoke here”. They then throw their cigarette butts on the ground. What if others threw their apple cores, banana peels, candy wrappers on the ground. They would be fined. Nobody says a thing to a smoker when they blow smoke in your face. If you sneeze, most people are polite and say excuse me. Smokers do not even think about the fumes they are putting in the air.