At least twenty-six states prohibit smoking in certain “public” places, and other states are considering such prohibitions. The debates over such bans are often heated, with smokers and non-smokers each claiming that their rights are threatened. The result is an apparent clash of “rights.” In fact, there is no clash, and the real victims are generally ignored by both sides of the debate.
There are no such thing “smoker’s rights” or “non-smoker’s rights.” There are only individual rights, and they apply to smokers and non-smokers alike.
A right is a sanction to freedom of action. A right means that you are free to act on your judgment; others may not morally use force to stop you from doing so. The mutual rights of other prohibit you from using force to interfere with their actions.
Smoking bans generally apply to such “public” places as restaurants and work places. With the exception of government offices, these are actually private places–they privately owned and operated. The fact that these businesses are open to “the public” does not make them “public property.” Smoking bans force the owners of these private establishments to act in a particular manner, regardless of their own judgment. Smoking bans force owners to use their property contrary to their own choices.
The right to property is the right of use and disposal. It means that the property owner can use his property as he chooses, and others may not use force–or the threat of fines–to interfere with his actions.
Those who object to a particular use of property are free to shun, boycott, and ostracize the owner. If you don’t like the sandwiches at a particular restaurant, you are free to go elsewhere. If you don’ t like the wages offered by one employer, you are free to get a job elsewhere. As a consumer and employee, you are free to act on your own judgment. And morally, you must respect the right of the business owner to act on his judgment.
This principle applies no matter the issue–the products sold, the price asked, the wages offered, the terms of employment, and much more. It also applies to the environment provided–the ambiance, seating arrangements, and the presence of smokers. If you don’t like any of these, you are free to go elsewhere. Just as you have the right to accept or reject any aspect of the trade offered by the business owner, he also has the right to make that offer.
Many advocates of smoking bans argue that it isn’t that easy. Employees, they argue, can’t simply quit their job because their employer allows smoking:
We continue to allow smokers to literally blow their poison in our faces under the demented justification that if we do not like it we can go somewhere else or even the more twisted logic that those working in bars and restaurants that allow smoking can get a job somewhere else.
Apparently, the author finds it “demented” and “twisted” to suggest that producers and consumers actually take responsibility for their choices. Is it demented to suggest that, if you don’t like the prices at one store, you should go to another store? Is it twisted logic to suggest that, if you don’t like the wages offered by one employer, then find another job?
In truth, there is no “right” to a smoke-free environment. There is only the right of business owners to use their property as they deem best, and the right of consumers and employees to accept the owner’s terms and conditions or reject them.