Say Anything Blog

Because who don’t like cigarette smoke can’t just make up their minds to patronize non-smoking bars and restaurants.

Some people are suggesting a complete statewide smoking ban may be next after voters in Fargo and West Fargo approved complete smoking bans Tuesday. Others argue it’s too early to tell.

“It’s going to have a large ripple effect across the state,” said June Herman, senior director of advocacy at the American Heart Association in Jamestown. “It could have a major impact (on what other communities do).”

Herman and the association have worked with legislators in the past, hoping to encourage a statewide ban. She was also a part of the Smoke-Free Air for Everyone Coalition that promoted the smoking bans in Fargo and West Fargo. The bans could go into effect as soon as July 1.

But Rep. Kathy Hawken, R-Fargo, said it’s too early to know how state legislators will react when the session begins in January.

“It’s hard to say without seeing the legislation,” she said.

One Republican legislator has sensible take on the issue:

Rep. Dwight Wrangham, R-Bismarck, reacted to the news of bans in Fargo and West Fargo by saying they took “the wrong approach.”

“I don’t know if it means much for the rest of the state,” Wrangham said. “We need to help people quit smoking. We’re not helping people at all by doing these bans; we’re hurting people.”

I’m not entirely convinced that it’s the state’s responsibility to convince people to stop smoking any more than it’s the state’s responsibility to convince people to eat fewer cheeseburgers, but at least Rep. Wrangham understands that smoking bans are counterproductive and beyond the resopnsible scope of government power.

I’d point out that unlike other forms of government regulation - such as health department inspections of restaurants and such - smoking bans are an infringement upon freedom.  You cannot say that a health inspector ensuring that your hamburger is cooked properly and in a clean environment, which are things that you expect when you patronize a restaurant, is an infringement upon your freedom.  You can say, however, that a law prohibiting you from engaging in an activity you’re choosing to engage in despite being aware of the health consequences is, in fact, an infringement of freedom.

There may have been a time in this country when smokers could argue that they didn’t know that smoking was bad for them.  But in the modern age of tobacco and health awareness no citizen has that excuse any more.  So if citizens choose to light up a cigarette, that’s their business and not the government’s.  And if a particular business owner wants to allow them to light up a cigarette on his/her property that’s again their business, and not the government’s.

That’s how free societies work.  Sadly, though, America has slowly moved away from the ideals of freedom to a society where most citizens see government regulation not as a way to maintain appropriate levels of basic public safety but rather as a way to expunge their communities of behavior they find distasteful.