Minnesota's "Freedom to Breathe Act" Smoking Ban

On May 16th, 2007 Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty signed the "Freedom To Breathe Act" which effectively banned smoking on a state wide level in all bars, restaurants, clubs and more. This passing bill made Minnesota the 20th state to pass similar legislation. The bill is set to go into effect on October 1st of 2007.

I'm not going to debate the countless arguments against smoking and the hazards attributed to it. That is because I completely agree. Yes, smoking causes cancer. Yes, smoking kills huge numbers of people. Yes, it is highly addictive. Yes, it stinks up your hair. Yes, it stinks up your clothes. Yes, second hand smoke is hazardous. YES YES YES YES YES!!!!! All these arguments are completely true and valid.

There are however, a few items in regard to state wide smoking bans that are routinely left out of the debate in deciding whether or not to adopt such legislation. Since this is a heated topic for me personally, I would like to take a moment to review those few items at this time.

When I talk to people and express my opposition to state wide smoking bans, many of them will say something to the effect of, "Well, but the people voted to pass it...and since we live in a democracy..."

This statement is fine, accept for the fact that we don't actually live in a Democracy. We live in something called, a Republic. This is because the founding fathers of this nation viewed Democracy as another form of tyranny. Maybe that goes to explain why you won't find the word Democracy anywhere in either the Constitution, or the Declaration Of Independence. Perhaps it also explains why we sing "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic". If you are still a little lost on this, take the following sentence, and try to fill in the blank:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the ________ for which it stands..."

What's the difference? To stay on topic, I will give the most abbreviated comparative analogy I can think of.

Republic:
2 wolves and 1 sheep are deciding what is for dinner. Under a Republic style government, they all have a right to eat, but none has the right to eat each other. The rights of each are equally protected by the government, but they must govern themselves so that they each find a way to eat without violating the rights of another.

Democracy:
2 wolves and 1 sheep are deciding what to eat for dinner. Under a Democracy style government, they all have a right to eat, but none has a right to eat each other...so long as it is the will of the majority (or 2 wolves). If at any time the wolves decide it would just be easier to eat the sheep, they vote on it, and the rights and will of the minority (sheep, otherwise dinner) are of little consequence.

So, "No. You do not live in a Democracy. You live in a Republic. Please, stop spreading lies."

The other really big issue here is something that only the much older readers will understand. This is because it's something that existed in their time, but has since apparently fallen off the face of the earth. The younger readers may want to write down or bookmark the following phrase and research it a bit. It's called "Personal Accountability" or "Personal Responsibility" for your actions. Essentially it operates like this:

You have a value of 'X' understanding about a certain issue. The determinate value of 'X' is based primarily on:

A) The factual evidence you hold regarding the issue and items connected to it
and/or
B) Your previous experiences with that issue

Ex: You understand there is something called a highway. You understand that something called automobiles go back and forth carrying people and goods along the highway. You also understand that when one of these automobiles is in motion, and it comes into immediate contact with a human or animal, it more often than not maims or kills that person or animal.

Now, let's say you are of the opinion that it would not be particularly fun to be plowed into by a moving automobile. Let's up the ante and say that you would like to be on the other side of the highway. With the understanding you have about highways, automobiles, and what happens when they come into contact with a humans, still (for reasons that will never make sense to me) you decide to walk out directly into oncoming traffic. While doing so, you get hit by an automobile and end up in the hospital with multiple broken bones.

The basic concept of this thing called "personal accountability / responsibility" says that while you are laying in the hospital bed with broken bones, it is (brace yourself) YOUR FAULT that you are laying there! That's because you knew what highways were, what automobiles were, and the things that can occur should you get hit by one, but yet you decided of your own free will to walk out into oncoming traffic despite your understanding about these things.

To further drive home my point about this, I would like to note that I was living in Washington state when the proposal came up for a state wide smoking ban. At this time I was working with individuals who were categorically "developmentally disabled" or "mentally retarded". One of the individuals I was working with happened to be a smoker. One day, just outside the door of a restaurant we were preparing to go into, I asked this person if they thought they would be able to smoke inside or not. They paused, momentarily reviewed the door and it's surrounding windows, then replied to me, "no". When asked how they came to that conclusion, they pointed to the "no smoking" sign on the door.

I am still baffled to this day how it is that someone who is categorically "mentally retarded" can accurately make the distinction between a smoking and a non-smoking establishment...while grown, rationale adults, of fully functional mental capacity can't seem to do the same, and then make their decision accordingly. I would think that if one were so adverse to cigarette smoke and it's hazards, then they too would be able to look at a door or window of a facility, and say to themselves something along the lines of, "hmm, looks like there might be people smoking inside this building. Ya know, I'm pretty adverse to cigarette smoke. Perhaps I wont subject myself to this hazard." And then decide to not go in the building.

I am not saying that I feel all establishments should be smoking facilities. I try very hard to review the facts, the concerns, along with the pros and cons of any given issue and then after sorting through all of it, make my decision. Take restaurants for example. I personally very much enjoy a cigarette accompanied by a freshly brewed cup of coffee right after a meal. For me, there is almost a certain state of nirvana that is achieved in that moment. However, after listening to the arguments both for and against a smoking ban in restaurants I have to concede that those assigned to the argument in favor of a ban on restaurant smoking simply have more valid reasons than those taking the opposite end of the debate. Bars however, are a completely different situation. Largely because unlike restaurants, most bars aren't a place you take the kids. Additionally most people don't go to restaurants to:

A) Get in a fight or a possible shoot out
B) Up their chances of going home with someone who will be to drunk to remember to mention they have some form of STD
C) Consume a substance that is proven to permanently kill your brain cells and liver.

Simply put: Bars are not exactly health resorts to begin with, so perhaps we should stop pretending they are.

I side with the non-smoking argument on a number of things. To me it seems beyond belief that we have a majority of adults who have made the decision not to smoke, and yet somehow the majority of venues are smoking establishments (at least where it hasn't been banned outright). Perhaps instead of desecrating the foundational ideals of the Republic in which we live by running rampant with a false idea that it's only the majority that matters, we could instead take a bit more time in our deliberations, striving to achieve something that resembles balance and a respect for the rights and the will of every person. Is there anyone who would argue that it simply makes more sense for the percentage of smoking venues to be acceptably proportionate to the percentage of smokers in each community? If 75% a population has made the decision to not smoke, shouldn't 75% of the venues also be non-smoking? Is there a way in which we can assure that the will of the minority is respected as equally as the will of the majority, and that the intent of the founding fathers is upheld in this great nation. I would think that perhaps through various forms of legislation such as tax incentives for businesses who are smoking to become non-smoking such a thing could occur. I would think that through additional regulations, licenses, inspections, and fees for establishments who wish to continue to allow smoking, such a thing could occur. I think that perhaps the easiest way to do things is not always the right way to do things. I think we can do better America.