Recently, the Virginia state senate passed SB1161, a bill that would impose a sweeping ban on smoking in most places frequented by the public, including bars and restaurants. As of this writing, the bill was awaiting action by the House of Delegates. Most likely the bill will fail, as the House has already rejected similar legislation originally introduced in that chamber.
While smoking in bars and restaurants will almost certainly not be banned during this General Assembly session, the very fact that the Senate has passed such a bill two years in a row indicates that the anti-smoking forces are hard at work. I am making the prediction now that their ultimate goal is the complete prohibition of tobacco use altogether.
I am not going to dispute the fact that tobacco use and secondhand smoke are harmful, there are certainly benefits to be realized from people voluntarily quitting or not picking up the habit to begin with. The key word here is "voluntarily." Unfortunately, the anti-smokers have no interest in you making your own decisions. They know what's best, and if it takes the force of government to impose their will, then that's fine by them.
One recent argument in favor of a restaurant/bar smoking ban to appear on this opinion page is that the state must protect the interests of foodservice employees. I'd like to point out that no one is ever forced to work anywhere, so in the same manner that customers have the choice whether or not to patronize a smoking-allowed establishment, potential workers have that same choice.
I'm reasonably sure that most people reading this have had at least one job that they did not like, whether because the hours were stressful, the pay was too low, co-workers were unpleasant or you felt like your job was dangerous. Those are the sort of risks associated with any endeavor. Presumably, if the risks outweigh the benefits, you move on to something else.
Some might say that certain workers have no choice but to keep their current job. This is preposterous because it assumes that those individuals are incapable of recognizing risks and taking the steps to move on to something better. Now, before anyone accuses me of not knowing what I'm talking about, let me say that I have worked in foodservice, retail and heavy industry (both as an hourly employee on the production floor and as an engineer). Throughout all that time I have either accepted risks or moved on, and it didn't necessarily take a college degree to do it either. The point being that if you are capable of going out and finding one job, you are just as capable of leaving that job for a better one if you want to badly enough.
Now let us examine the key premise in banning smoking in restaurants: protecting the interests of the worker. I have a wild idea. How about if we consider the interests of the business owners? Shouldn't they be the ones to choose what is allowable in their own establishments?
Let me put this in the proper perspective. During my time in Blacksburg, I've spent some time talking to the owner of one of downtown's more popular establishments (I say "popular" based empirically on the numbers of people I see there when I go). In doing so I've become keenly aware of what's involved in owning your own business.
It means spending six or seven days every week making sure that orders are placed, food and beverages come in on time, money is accounted for and complying with a long list of government regulations. It means only two weeks of vacation once every three years.
Furthermore, owning a business does not even guarantee riches. There are plenty of people who will graduate from Tech and immediately take jobs with large corporations that pay more than a small business owner's profits.
Contrast this to the restaurant employees who need only show up, punch in, work their shift, punch out and leave. I'm not saying that employees don't work hard, because I know from personal experience that they do. Yet without the untold hours of mental as well as physical angst on the part of the business owner those jobs would not exist at all.
Some have also argued that the government already regulates business (restaurants in particular), so where's the harm in one more?
More regulation means higher cost of doing business, whether it is time spent doing all the necessary paperwork, or the direct loss of income because of compliance (e.g. restricting what business owners can allow in their own establishments). This not only harms the owner, but potentially limits the number and salary of his employees. Given that small businesses are the lifeblood of any local economy, we should be calling for less regulation, not more.
I'll even go so far as to say there should be no government regulation of commerce whatsoever. Yes, business owners do not always do what is best for the so-called collective good, but at least we have a choice where to spend our money. In a purely free market, a business that engages in poor practices will not remain in business for long. This is in stark contrast to the government that has sheer force to bend people to its will. Given the choice between the businessman with a product to sell and the bureaucrat with hired thugs, I'll take the former.
I know I've digressed from the particular issue of smoking, but that is really just a subset of the larger debate over whether we should be free to make our own decisions, take risks, and possibly reap the benefits or allow others to tell us how to live our lives in the name of the collective good. The former viewpoint is called liberty, the latter is called fascism.
And smoking is healthier than fascism.
