Tobacco smoking has been one of the hot controversies of our time. Many people find tobacco smoke annoying, smelly and just plain dirty and unpleasant. Some smokers themselves agree with that sentiment. Today's smoking restrictions, not to mention the attack on smokers and extortion of tobacco companies, could not have been engineered simply on the grounds that tobacco smoke is unpleasant. We needed another reason. So the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) literally manufactured, using bogus science, the finding that second-hand smoke is a class A carcinogen causing death and illness for tens of thousands of people who are simply around tobacco smoke. The major news media, along with anti-tobacco zealots, convinced us of the wisdom of the EPA report. They downplayed or ignored findings showing EPA science to be bogus and outright fraud. ⁽¹⁾

The EPA and anti-tobacco zealots "proved" that tobacco smokers harmed other people. Stopping and preventing harm to others, especially to the nation's children, is something most Americans can wholeheartedly support. Thus, all manner of smoking regulations descended upon the nation from bans on smoking on airplanes, in airports and restaurants to bars, workplaces and even outdoor open air stadiums. Let's pretend that the EPA's bogus science about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke is legitimate and examine this business about harming others.

The first thing we should acknowledge is that we live in a world of harms. The secondhand smoke from my cigarette might harm you. However, your being able to prevent me from smoking harms me; I have less enjoyment. We cannot say which person's harm is more important and should take precedence. The reason why is that it is impossible to make interpersonal utility comparisons. In other words, there is no scientific way of deciding whose well-being is more important: whether the harm you suffer from my smoking is more important than the harm I suffer from not being permitted to smoke.

This impossibility of making interpersonal utility comparisons is applicable to most well-being type comparisons. For example, suppose there is a beautiful lady that both Jim and Bob are pursuing. If Jim wins her hand, Bob is harmed and if Bob wins her hand, Jim is harmed. There is no scientific way anyone can determine whose harm is more important and should take precedence over the other.

In a socialistic society, conflicting harms are resolved through government intimidation and coercion. In a free society, conflicting harms are settled through the institution of private property rights. Private property rights has to do with rights, belonging to the person deemed owner of property and protected by the state, to keep, acquire, use and dispose of property as he deems fit so long as he does not violate the property rights of another.

Therefore, in a free society, whether smoking harms others or not is irrelevant. The relevant issue is who owns the air? It is clear that if you own the air, it is your right to decide how it is used. If you do not want tobacco smoke in your air, that is your right that government should protect. By the same token, if I own the air, I have rights just as you do to decide how it is used. If I want to have tobacco smoke in my air, I have every right to do so and the government should protect my property rights just as it protects yours.

Most people will agree that for all intents and purposes the air in your house belongs to you. That being the case, other people do not have the right to use your air in ways that you do not approve. Similarly, the air in my house belongs to me and other people do not have rights to use my air in ways that I do not approve (like keeping it smoke-free). Most Americans probably agree that people have the right to decide whether smoking is permitted in their own homes, but that is where the agreement ends.

A majority of Americans agree with laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants, bars, airplanes, factories and offices and other "public" places. But why should their wishes be indulged through force of law? Are restaurants, bars, airplanes, factories and offices publicly owned places? No. For the most part, restaurants, bars, airplanes, factories and offices are private property simply doing business with the public. As such the institution of private property rights should resolve any conflict over smoking. The owner of a restaurant or bar should have the right to decide whether smoking is permitted on his premises or not. Customers have the right to decide the terms on which they patronize the restaurant. If the owner does not permit smoking, then people who wish to smoke during dinner can decide not to patronize that restaurant. Similarly, an employer who wishes to permit smoking in his offices should have the right to do so. People who wish to work in a smoke-free office environment can simply choose some other place of employment where the owner does not permit smoking.

There is absolutely no moral argument for people to use the power of the state to force a restaurant owner who does not want smoking in his establishment to accommodate smokers. Just as there is no moral argument for people to use the power of the state to force a restaurant owner who permits smoking to prohibit smoking. That would be the moral values in a free society; however, so much of mankind exhibits a generalized contempt for the principles of liberty. We succumb to the temptation of using the power of the state to forcibly impose our preferences on others. In doing so, we establish dangerous precedents that have dire implications for liberty. After all if health concerns become the reason for violating private property rights and forcibly overruling people's preferences, where does it end? There are people who want to place high taxes on non-nutritious food, so called junk food, and use the proceeds to build hiking and biking paths. There are people who want to regulate caffeine content in coffee, sodas and chocolates. There are people who want to regulate the size of meal servings in Chinese and Mexican restaurants because they are deemed too large and contribute to the nation's obesity problems. ⁽²⁾

Health concerns can be used as justification to control a considerable part of our day to day lives, from what time we go to bed to whether we exercise or not. Some might claim that such a concern is overly alarmist and that kind of government control is impossible. But back in the 1960's when anti-tobacco zealots were simply asking that there be separate sections on airplanes for non-smokers, who would have predicted what we have today? When the anti-tobacco zealots started out, had they revealed their true and complete agenda, they never would have gotten separate sections for non-smokers on airplanes.

1. In July 1999, U.S. District Court Judge William L. Osteen found reason to nullify the EPA's 1992 report that claimed second-hand smoke to be a class A human carcinogen and cause of lung cancer. He found that the EPA knowingly, willfully and aggressively put out false and misleading information.

2. Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says about large food servings, "It's high time the [restaurant] industry begins to bear some responsibility for its contribution to obesity, heart disease and cancer." Dr. Ronald Griffiths, at Johns Hopkins University, concerned about coffee addiction says, "If health risks are well-documented, caffeine could be catapulted in public perception from a pleasant habit to a possibly harmful drug of abuse." Along with Michael Jacobson, he wants the FDA to regulate caffeine content in soda, coffee, tea and chocolate.