Washington Votes Not to Smoke
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.
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.
posted by Matt Pitchford at 16:45
3 Comments:
Thank you for your comments! However, I don't quite agree:
1. Sure, daycare centers and grocery stores are fine, but why add establishments that are catering specifically to smokers? If you don't like the smoke in a bowling alley (as now banned by this initiative) go to a non-smoking bowling alley.
2. I also have no problem with helping the health of employees. However, the law does not seem to make the same distinctions that you would suggest. If you are banning the use of smoking in entertainment facilities and restaurants to protect the workers there, there is a problem. Again, the employees all have the power to choose where their labor is used in the market. You don't like the establishment's rule on smoking, try to get it changed or just plain leave.
I personally don't like smoking. The problem that I have with this law is its implications in regard to the free market and personal liberties.
As for the tax revenue thing...the income would be incredibly easy to replace. How about stopping the subsidies to tobacco farmers? Not that I have ever accused any politician of being overburdened with good sense or judgment, but subsidising a group that you then ultimately sue essentially means you are suing yourself. And that will always be hilarious.
The gist of your argument is dead-on, however. I would even go so far as to say a lot of the renting laws have the same problem. Nobody should be able to tell me who I can or cannot rent my privately owned house to. And so forth.
Excellently put! I would agree with your statements in the utmost. My point is that the lost dollars are Washington State revenue only. In order to replace this from subsidies, it would be a national affair. Congress would have to give up funding to other state economies in order to help Washington state government. It would be a great idea, but I don't think it will ever happen. In our state's eyes, the citizens seem willing to supplement the state's lost tobacco income with more taxes.
Post a Comment
<< Home