Smoke Free Arizona Law is an Affront to Freedom

On May 1, 2007, the new Arizona law that banned smoking in all public places took effect. Proponents called the law "Smoke Free Arizona" and the law prohibits bar and restaurant owners from having any indoor smoking area. I can agree with banning smoking entirely in establishments who function solely to feed people. After all, there is nothing more disgusting than having to watch people eat when I am trying to smoke! But, to knock smoking out of bars is taking the matter entirely too far. Bar owners agree, as evidenced by the "Arizona Freedom of Choice Organization" of bar and grill owners, many of whom report a thirty-plus percent drop in business as a result of smokers staying away. And there is more at stake here than merely a matter of non-smokers imposing their preference on others.

This law imposes a condition upon business owners that didn't exist when they made the financial commitment to open their places of business. Imagine investing everything one has in the world in a business enterprise, and then having the government decide to eliminate a large portion of one's potential customers by passing a law against the pursuit of a lawful undertaking (smoking is legal) while in said place of business. The unfairness of this law should be obvious, even to those who detest smoking. If it's not obvious, just imagine a new law that said you couldn't stop at your favorite watering hole and enjoy a beer without sitting next to a smoker. Such a law would impose the same condition on the bar owner-they would lose a percentage of their clientèle to a condition that didn't exist when they made their investment. For many, the unfairness of imposing Smoke Free Arizona on business owners has been offset by the assumption that smokers put an undue burden on the cost of health care, but this assumption is now under attack.

Up until recently, non-smokers and smoke haters have been able to point to their wallets and claim that smokers raise the cost of medical care. This claim has been used to bolster the argument that they (the smoke haters) have some inherent right to impose their preference on those who have made different choices. A recent study of the lifetime health care costs incurred by smokers and the obese shows that the cost for smokers is actually lower than that of non-smokers. According to the study, the lower costs of medical care for smokers is directly attributable to the fact that smokers get into the ground before needing the long-term care that many non-smokers tend to need. Whether one agrees or not with the choice to risk a shorter lifetime in order to smoke (and maybe not hang around til diapers are required), it is still the smoker's choice to make in a free country.

In a free country, people who aren't doing harm to others should have the right to make personal choices. Smoking in a manner that does not impose on others or subject them to unwanted smoke should be a matter of personal choice. Similarly, a business owner who chooses to cater to smokers should have the same rights as those who choose to cater to non-smokers. This is exactly the freedom that the Arizona Freedom of Choice organization is asking for. The right to say: this is my place of business, I want it to be open to those who wish to patronize my business in a smoking environment. Those who object can go to the bar that bans smoking.

Far more sensible, and far more equitable would be a law that required clearly posting a smoking or non-smoking rule (established by the business owner) on the swinging doors. With this law smokers and non-smokers would have choices. It's called: if you don't like how we run the joint-go somewhere else!