The answer is quite simple. A principle that our republic was founded on is that an adult is free to do whatever he or she wants, even commit some forms of bodily harm, as long as such action does not cause harm to any other citizen. But, that principle is also used to restrict the activities of individuals, to stop any one person's seemingly non-violent action from harming another. No one gets hurt if a man has six or eight beers in the space of an hour, but that might change if he gets behind the wheel. In that situation, and others in which harm to others is likely to occur, the government curtails individual freedoms.
According to this fundamental principle, one's right to smoke cigarettes is, therefore, not inviolable. Much like drunk driving, one should not be able to smoke if doing so can be proved with all or near certainty to lead to the harm of fellow citizens.
The last Surgeon General's report, supported by most in the medical community, concluded that one can inhale no level of secondhand smoke without experiencing harmful effects. Therefore, local, state and federal governments should enact reasonable restrictions on smoking in circumstances in which one might be exposed to secondhand smoke. Given that there are no ventilation systems capable of completely preventing contact in bars and restaurants, it seems there is only one option that will protect the lungs of non-smoking patrons. We need a ban that closes loopholes in current state law and prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants; a citywide smoking ban.
There is precedent for such a measure. Maryland law already prohibits smoking in all industries but the hospitality, bar and restaurant industries. A comprehensive citywide smoking ban would end a legal exception that unfairly deems the health of workers in these industries to be less important than that of employees elsewhere.
Smoking advocates would counter my argument with three points. First, that a business owner should be allowed to run his business as he sees fit in order to make a profit. Second, that a person should be able to do what he or she wants while engaged in a leisure activity such as going to a restaurant. And third, that it is a slippery slope for the state to legislate against an individual's seemingly non-violent action in the name of public health.
In regard to the first point, economic studies done in New York City and Montgomery County, M.D., showed that restaurants and bars actually did better financially after the smoking bans passed. However, for restaurant and bar owners who are not convinced, Baltimore's proposed legislation allows the City Health Commissioner to grant exemptions to the ban.
And, while that slope may indeed be slippery, it is equally dangerous to suggest that the customer should be able to do whatever he or she wants at a restaurant just because it is a "leisure activity." According to that reasoning, a customer would be allowed to fondle a waitress because, hey, this is leisure.
Should Baltimore prohibit smoking in all public places and run the risk of infringing on freedom of personal choice? Or, should the city allow for loose, if not over-zealous, interpretation of freedom of personal choice, not pass the ban and turn a blind eye to those innocent people who suffer from secondhand smoke? It's a tough call either way, but since other cities have successfully gone smoke-free without being sued by the ACLU, I think Baltimore can do the same. And if the ban passes and you still want to smoke, just go outside. If it's cold, you can find solace and warmth in the fact that your adherence to the law helps protect the health of fellow citizens of Baltimore.
Aaron Glaser is a senior poltical science and philosophy major from Nanuet, NY. He is director of legislative affairs, Office of the Vice President - Baltimore City Council.
