Anti-smoking tyrants

An unpopular truth

[Reprinted from Issues & Views December 17, 2001]

Less than a year ago, the Montgomery County Council, by a 5-to-4 vote, approved the outdoor smoking ban adopted by its nearby neighbor, the Village of Friendship Heights, Md. That ban prohibited smoking on or in sidewalks, lawns, parks, buildings or other areas owned by the Village. First offenses would be subject to a warning, and subsequent offenses subject to a $100 fine.

The health arguments offered about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke crossing property lines are but so much bunk. Yes, there are some who have emphysema, asthma or allergies and are annoyed by cigarette smoke. These people may also be annoyed by other air borne products such as hair spray, after-shave lotions, perfumes, clothing softeners, fireplace smoke, cooking odors and deodorants. Should they be able to make a complaint and have the police knock on their neighbor's door and tell them to cease and desist?

Should we change airport announcements that now say: "In the interest of a healthy indoor air quality, smoking is not permitted in public areas" to more health-inclusive announcements that say: "In the interest of a healthy indoor air quality, passengers are not permitted to smoke, wear perfumes, use hair sprays, deodorants or after-shave lotion, or wear clothing that's been rinsed in fabric softeners?" Or should we just have odor and odor-free seating sections on airplanes?

America's cigarette Nazis, like any other tyrant, cannot be satisfied. In the '60s, when they started out, they wanted no smoking sections on airplanes. Had they revealed their complete agenda: no smoking on airplanes, airports, restaurants, jobs, streets, not to mention confiscatory taxes, they wouldn't have gotten anything.

-- Walter Williams, syndicated columnist and Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (Creators Syndicate).

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views