On November 8th, Washington State went to the polls. One of the initiatives passed by the voters of Washington state was
I-901. Basically, it bans smoking in public places (no matter if the owner is a private individual) and bans smoking within 25 feet of a public place.
The relevant portions text of the measure read:
"Public place" means that portion of any building or vehicle used by and open to the public,
regardless of whether the building or vehicle is owned in whole or in part by private persons or entities, the state of Washington, or other public entity, and regardless of whether a fee is charged for admission, and includes a presumptively reasonable
minimum distance ... of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited."
"No person may smoke in a public place or a place of employment."
(emphasis mine)I have two basic problems with this initiative. 1. The law itself is flawed. 2. The law is vague on too many counts to make an impact.
1. What right does the government have to regulate private business? The constitution of the United States is designed to protect the people from the government. The less influence, the better. While I do not advocate smoking (I find it disgusting) everyone has a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." If smoking makes you happy, so be it!
An interesting notion, this idea of the pursuit of happiness can be taken too far. For example, drugs may make you happy ... but they are illegal. Should they be made legal? No. The law involves some degree of common sense.
Even without the Federal Constitution, the government should just let the private citizen deal with the problem. If you don't smoke and don't like breathing secondhand smoke, don't go the establishment that allows smoking! If it is a big deal for you, organize a boycott of the establishment.
For example, I can personally attest to walking out of restaurants that allow smoking. I don't like the smell all over my clothes and the bad stuff transmitted via
second hand smoke. They didn't get my business. I went somewhere else and they lost a potential sale. This is partly why some places are removing their smoking section. Without customers you don't have a business.
Conversly, if you like smoking, you should have every right to smoke in an establishment that allows smoking. The law states that you can't even smoke in a private club that requires an admission fee. You can't go to a smoking establishment if you want to.
Is this law wrong? Absolutely. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are plenty of alternatives to creating a law that forbids smoking for the private individual. I would even contend they are more effective measures. Businesses want you to go to their establishment. If they don't get enough customers because they allow smoking, they will quit smoking cold turkey.
One final interesting point before I continue, the State collects major revenue from a tax on tobacco products. This is worth approximately
$254,770,000 in 2001. The government points out, "Currently, cigarette tax collections go to the general fund, water quality, drug enforcement, health services, and salmon recovery programs." As the revenue dries up because less people will smoke as often, these
programs will suffer. Who will take up the slack in the collection of taxes? Smokers and non-smokers alike.
2. The law is too vague. Many people have pointed out that the required 25 foot distance is in the middle of the street. There isn't even a clear regard to enforcement in the bill. Law officials are tasked to keep a special eye out for violators, but who is supposed to check up on the establishments? Without clear boundaries and clear enforcement, this
strictest smoking ban in the nation readers itself impotent.
Robert Maynard Hutchins once said, "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." I do not contend that the establishment of a strict smoking ban is a threat to democracy. I do contend that more taxes, which must necessarily be enacted to supplement lost revenue from tobacco taxes, are bad.
The growing power of the state government to regulate private businesses and individuals (a right so willingly given by those individuals) is a step down a road with a gentle slope to a less free society.
NOTE: More info
here.