Response by Michael F. Meehan
January 23, 2002
Smokers 'assault' everyone
Here's my 2 cents on the so-called "smokers' rights" issue, as presented by its supporters on the opinion pages of the The Arizona Republic.
Smoking is part of one's private life, say the smokers, and I don't deny it. What I do deny is that smoking is a right, despite the popular myth among smokers to the contrary. I will agree that smoking in private is a private affair. But smoking in a public place is a public affair and should be regulated.
Why? Simple. If your smoke enters my lungs against my wishes, it is as much an assault as if you punch me in the nose. And assault is a crime.
Lest you believe this to be an issue of individual liberty, it was Ayn Rand, archetype of rugged individualism, who said, "[n]o man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man - or group or society or government - has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use." Even if the only force is the admonition to go elsewhere, that is still the use of physical compulsion against one who did not initiate the use of force, thus an assault. (This also applies to inconsiderate oafs who blast their stereos such that cars around them begin vibrating.)
Requiring offended parties to move away from cigarette smoke suggests superior territorial rights for smokers, who as a class are afforded the right to impose upon others the unsatisfactory choices of breathing tobacco smoke, or physically moving away from it. The basic right is to not be assaulted, not the right to assault. The only assault smokers suffer here, if denied the right to smoke in public places, is that of their own self-righteous indignation at being told they cannot assault others with their habit.
Consider this scenario. Two people in a restaurant, at adjacent tables. Without the existence of tobacco, neither intrudes upon the other's space. Now, bring tobacco into the picture. One customer does not smoke, one does. The smoke intrudes into the lungs of the second customer. Affording the non-smoking customer the right to intrude into the space of the smoker to stop the initial invasion of his space is a legitimate exercise of governmental power, since there was no offense prior to smoking.
The smoker's right to swing his fist ends at the point of the non-smoker's nose. The right to smoke ends at the same place and does not require anyone to move his nose. Thus we have the right to invoke the force of law - i.e., the legitimate use of force - to defend our noses against assault, whether that assault is by fist or by smoke.
Noted jurist Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961): "A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few." If your smoke gets in my face, I have the right to stop you. If you don't think so, you need to go back and re-read Second Treatise on Civil Government by John Locke and On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
I'm not suggesting that many smokers deliberately blow smoke in the face of non-smokers just to spite them. But tobacco smoke causes harm to others by virtue of its existence, regardless of the intent of the user. That is not acceptable, and to call it a right is indefensible.