D.C. City Council to Snuff Out Additional Liberties

(This entry is the second in a series on the state of freedom in the District of Columbia.)

Several times in the past two weeks, I have been inconvenienced by other patrons smoking in bars located in the District of Columbia.

While enjoying a glass of wine with a friend at the sophisticated Le Bar, the bar located in the Sofitel Hotel, I suddenly noticed an irritation in my throat. I turned to my left and noticed that someone had lit a cigarette. Soon after I told my friend that I was allergic to smoke, the smokers disappeared, perhaps in deference to my situation (smoking is not permitted in the dining room across the hall). A few days later, a waiter at The Daily Grill led me to a nonsmoking table that I immediately decided was too close to the bar. The waiter was very accommodating.

I do not like cigarette smoke; in fact, many smokers themselves detest the smell. I don't like sometimes smelling like smoke after a night on the town. Depending on the brand of tobacco, smoke adversely affects me physically. And as for dating smokers, let's just say that ash is an acquired taste.

Acting to rescue me from these nefarious perils, the D.C. City Council's Health Committee last week approved legislation that would ban smoking in all District bars and restaurants within a year. A vote by the full Council on the bill, which is likely to pass, could occur next month. The bill contains an economic-hardship waiver for businesses that can show a "significant, negative impact," but pro-ban Councilman David Catania admits that the waiver would rarely be granted.

This bill and the "Smoke Free D.C." movement represent yet another unwarranted interference with capitalism and individual self-determination, which is already suffocating every day by an immense body of local and federal regulations. No one is forced to patronize any bar or restaurant, nor is anyone forced to work in these establishments. The anti-smoking law would forbid a bar to freely offer a particular atmosphere and convenience to patrons who prefer the liberty to engage in the consumption of a legal substance.

I oppose the D.C. smoking ban on principle. Even if there are a multitude of benefits to nonsmokers such as myself, the marketplace should be the judge of whether smoking should occur in private places of accommodation-- so long as the dangers are open and obvious to consumers. Reasonable health code regulations are permissible in order to maintain the safety of food and beverages because the consumer is not well-equipped to know which businesses follow safe food handling procedures. However, the risks of second-hand smoke are well-known, and smokers are not hidden.

The principle of freedom alone justifies opposition to this ban, but it may be opposed on empirical cost-benefit grounds as well. Whenever government intervenes in the marketplace, even when it is justified, there are consequences, not all of them predictable or measurable. ATLAS, which is opposed to the smoking ban, notes:

The overwhelmingly negative results of a mandatory smoking ban in Minneapolis in the six months of imposition through September 2005, and notably during the period of seasonably pleasant spring and summer months, are [evident, considering the] closure of nearly 40 alcohol-licensedvenues with more than 50 additional venues facing imminent financial demise and closure, the loss of more than 2,000 service worker jobs, and local economic losses of over $1 million per month.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded the District this week that it cannot impose a "commuter tax" on residents of Virginia and Maryland who work in the District but take their tax dollars back to their home states. The District, with revenues already stymied by tax dollars flowing to neighboring jurisdictions, can ill afford to have bar patrons take their business across the border as well. But it is a definite possibility that D.C. businesses will suffer, as will D.C. tax revenues, should the smoking ban pass.

Anti-smoking advocates will no doubt muster evidence bolstering the argument that the smoking ban's economic effects are negligible-- or justified, given the benefits of smoking. One might say the same about D.C.'s mandatory car seatbelt-wearing law or any number of other "reasonable" restrictions on personal liberty. We have become comfortable in our cages. Anyone who wishes to consume alcoholic beverages at a private business has become accustomed to presenting bar employees, who have become agents of the government, with sufficient identification proving that one is old enough to drink-- because the government has determined that less maturity is required to elect our leaders than to make the decision to drink.

Individually, such restrictions appear innocuous, even greatly desirable. But the bigger picture is disturbing: the specter of seemingly benevolent, statist government intruding into every corner of human existence until freedom is choking on the fumes of government edicts. Liberty must not die a death of a thousand cuts based upon the "reasonable" cost-benefit analysis of individual laws. The threat to freedom is real. Resistance to this threat is the truly moral position.