Second-hand politics

I detest smoking. I can’t stand smelling cigarette smoke when I’m trying to eat a nice meal. I get angry when I have to walk the gauntlet of downtown workers sucking on coffin nails along the sidewalk. But I’m not supporting Issue 5, because I do not believe the state has any legitimate business making such decisions for the private sector and individuals by enforcing such a sweeping ban, even if a majority of those who happen to vote Nov. 7 (call it the "tyranny of the plurality") approve it.

That’s not to say that smoking should not disappear in most places. But it’s better left to the private sector and public pressure in a local setting. It should be done by free people expressing their own preferences in the marketplace. It’s happening anyway. We are becoming a largely smoke-free society without the brute force of statewide strictures. Leaving the option open for bars and other such establishments won’t lead to a sudden surge in smoking; more and more businesses are finding the move to smoke-free status to be in their best interests.

Those who are serious about the smoking/health issue should be talking about where smoke is really being inhaled – inside the homes of smokers, where children are affected. The Surgeon General's recent report said that median levels of cotinine (a nicotine byproduct) in children are more than twice that of adults. Where’s the call for that ban? Where's the campaign to make tobacco illegal? That's the real end game here, isn't it? Let's be honest about it.

Sure, a gradual lessening of public smoking, along with education and economic disincentives, will shrink the percentage of Americans who smoke in the long run, perhaps to near zero. But what about the generations of children who will grow up in smoky houses in the meantime? Aren’t they at greater risk than adults who patronize a tavern or bowling alley from time to time, or even those who work in such places?

I’m also troubled by the trend toward using government to coerce changes in people’s behavior – what we eat or drink, how we travel, how much we weigh, what activities we undertake – by rationalizing that "bad" behavior burdens society through increased health care costs. This goes beyond the argument against an individual doing something, like blowing smoke or driving drunk, that could harm another individual. This is about doing statistical harm to the collective. It's almost Orwellian. Aren't individual liberty and responsibility on anybody's radar anymore?

Yes, government already does that to some extent – with seat belts, for example. But reasonable people should be able to disagree reasonably on where the line should be drawn.