I was listening to a popular morning radio show on my way to work here in the Indianapolis metro area. It's called Abdul In the Morning on News Talk 1450 WXNT AM. They had guests in this morning from an advocacy group for smoke free children. The guests were supporting legislation that would ban smoking in all public places in the city of Indianapolis, which would generally include every business establishment. For you non-central Indiana Hoosiers, we already have a city law that bans smoking in dining establishments except bars and restaurants that do not allow minors (under age 21 in Indiana). In fact most cities and counties have passed similar laws and ordinances all across the state, indeed all across the country. Propritors can allow smoking in a restaurant in many places if they follow stringent codes to separate a smoking section of their establishments. However, renovation costs for compliance have forced most to go completely smoke free to comply to these new mandates.

I'll lead off by saying I am a non-smoker. I chose not to smoke (chain smoke cigarettes) based on the health risks. However I have had a premium cigar now and then, though they usually disagree with my sinuses. In other words, a ban on smoking won't really affect me much.

Most of these bans and ordinances are submitted in the form of providing for the health and safety of the public. Citing numerous studies, government reports, and statements from the Surgeon General's office of the deleterious effects of second hand smoke. Especially its detrimental effect on children, seniors and, those with respiratory ailments such as asthma. This argument is used for the current smoking bans that have gone into effect. However the new position is that smoking should not be allowed in any business establishment because of the potential harm to the employees. The argument for government control in this case is based on the position that it is the government's responsibility to ensure the occupational health and safety of employees. In fact we have federal occupational health and safety laws enforced by OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Most states have their own OSHA laws as well which are more restrictive or simply reinforce federal law.

The anti-smoking advocacy groups charge that employees in occupations where they are exposed to second-hand smoke are in danger of the health risks associated with second-hand smoke, whether or not they choose smoke themselves. Therefore they advocate legislation to ban smoking in all buisnesses based on the occupational safety of employees.

I don't quite see it that way. We're not talking hazardous as in big dangerous machinery. We're talking a potentially hazardous vapor that people choose (or are addicted) to breath for it's taste, aromatic, and phsychopharmacological effects. This means that some people enjoy smoking regardless of it's addictive and harmful effects. Therefore some people may not be sensitive to nor care much about working among or with smokers themselves. My point is this; if you choose to work for an employer in an establishment where smoking is allowed or prevalent then you accept the risks associated with second-hand smoke. If you don't accept the risks then you choose not to work in such an establishment. It's rather simple actually.

The problem comes from the clearly radical nature of certain types of actavist groups. Let's be clear I'm not claiming that the group represented on Abdul's show this morning fits the following stereotype. However many anti-smoking actavist groups believe  that no one should ever breathe tobacco smoke voluntarily or not. They claim that people who smoke don't choose to do so but rather are compelled to because of their addiction to nicotine. In many cases with cigarettes this assumption is true. However with preimum cigars and pipe tobacco this assumption is not always the case. As with many substances we chose to use with potential harmful effects, tobacco can be abused but it can also be enjoyed responsibly, especially by educated adults.

Unfortunately the socio-political dialoge has been polluted by vitriol on either side of the argument. I fault both the radical anti-smoking actavist groups, mainly for proposing draconian anti-smoking regulations. And their underlying ideology that people are not capable of making concious decisions for themselves without such nanny-state government regulations. As well as the tobacco product corporations who for many years criminally denied the potenially dangerous effects of their products. Most famously when many tobacco product corporations testified that their products were not addictive contrary to voluminous data and known industry practices to increase the addictive potency of some of their products.

Despite the heated positions people take on this subject for a variety of reasons, I personally come down to a liberatarian viewpoint. If you choose to smoke fine. If you choose not to smoke, fine as well. Should a smoker's right to smoke infringe upon a non-smoker's right to not smoke or be exposed to tobacco products? No. Should a non-smoker's right to choose not to smoke and not be exposed to tobacco products infringe upon a smoker's right to smoke. No as well. 

This is ultimately a free market decision that should be made by consumers. The smoker has a right to choose to smoke despite its potentially harmful effects. And to choose to patronize establishments which permit them to do so. As well the non-smoker has the right to choose not to smoke and to not patronize business establishments that permit smoking on their premises. Furthermore if the knowledge that smoking in general is harmful is finally learned by most citizens they will volunarily choose to renounce both tobacco products as well as compel business owners to make their establishments smoke free. Forcing business into the position to force their patrons to only be non-smokers especially for many bars and some restaurants is not, in my mind, the purview of the government.

As to the occupational health and safety of employees of smoking-friendly establishments, my proposal is as such. If it is deemed unsafe to work in a private business establishment (one owned and operated by a private individual, company or, corporation) that allows its patrons to engage in the smoking and usage of tobacco products on its premises that this fact be disclosed to potential employess. Furthermore such disclosures should warn of the associated risks involved in working in such an environment. Candidates so warned who choose to continue to seek employment under such circumstances should then forfeit any rights to any criminal or civil action against their employer for any adverse health conditions arising from second-hand smoke exposure.

Likewise business establishments should inform potential customers that they allow smoking on premises. Such customers, duly informed, are thus able to choose for themselves wherther or not to patronize such establishments. The market will decide if smoking establishments are profitable or not because of consumer awareness. 

Let's be clear here, I'm not advocating allowing smoking in elementary schools or public libraries. Or even the repeal of laws and ordinances that make such establishments require their patrons be of non-minor status. Primarly this would apply to places like bars and restaurants where smoking (and drinking) are often social gathering places for not just chain smoking addicts but also casual, responsible adult smokers. As well as any private establishment that could make a business case for allowing smoking on premises and turn a profit. That is the power of freedom in the free market.

It is also a mark of a truly free society to ensure the rights of those with whom we may not agree.