It was only a matter of time. With anti-smoking legislation winding its way through state legislatures across the country, you had to figure it would eventually infiltrate one of the bluest states in the union.

Sure enough, the Maryland General Assembly approved a statewide smoking ban that will take effect in February 2008. Apparently Maryland just doesn’t believe the laws leaving such decisions to local governments are intrusive enough.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this smoking ban is the way in which it has been misrepresented by state lawmakers and the media in recent weeks. Indeed, the Baltimore Sun has referred to this legislation as “a proposal to ban smoking in most indoor public establishments.”

Likewise, Del. Derrick Davis, Prince George’s County Democrat and House committee chair, justified the ban, stating, “At the end of the day, public health has to come before profit.”

This story continues below
Advertisement

This is one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever read, given that “public health” is unrelated to profit in this instance. After all, how many bars and restaurants can you name that are owned and operated by the government?

Private, for-profit establishments aren’t public entities; they’re businesses that members of the public choose to either work at or patronize. Smoking has been banned in almost all workplaces in Maryland for years, so outlawing it even in bars and restaurants should be considered a harbinger of outright prohibition.

Equally frustrating when it comes to smoking bans is that many opponents and proponents alike seem to allow their personal predilections to guide their viewpoint on the matter.

That is to say, smokers tend to oppose these bans while nonsmokers support them, both camps completely indifferent to the fact that general preferences are irrelevant because this is a property rights issue.

Quite simply, the government has no business determining the types of activities in which consenting adults may engage if they immediately harm no one else, especially when these activities take place on private property in compliance with the discretion of the property owner. Property rights are natural rights, not those merely decreed from on high by our elected officials.

Nonsmokers have no right to a smoke-free environment in restaurants and bars when they willingly patronize hangouts where smoking occurs. Moreover, the complaints of the anti-smoking crowd are largely baseless to begin with, given that the market has already supplied smoke-free establishments.

Although our lawmakers are expected to represent the will of the people, they’re by no means obligated to implement policy that is immoral, even if going with the flow is politically expedient. However, this hasn’t stopped Del. Jim Mathias of Worcester County from endorsing Maryland’s latest paternalistic ban. After all, his constituents are about “100 to 1 in favor.”

Every elected official in Maryland takes an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, which protects property owners against abuses by the state. Even if some people may be too naive or ignorant to understand that their rights are no more important than the rights of others, this does not absolve politicians of their responsibility to uphold the law.

Despite arguments to the contrary from smoking ban proponents, it’s no easier to determine the potentially dangerous effects of secondhand smoke than it is to determine the potential for harm in, say, owning a swimming pool or a gun, or allowing our kids to play contact sports, ride bicycles, or eat ice cream and cookies.

Indeed, to justify government intrusion into our lives and property at every opportunity of risk to our health is to justify our complete subservience to the Nanny State.

Trevor Bothwell is proprietor of the “Who’s Your Nanny?” Web log.