Wyoming Legislature - committee submittal against a smoking ban

Your legislature needs to hear from you. The following argument against a ban on smoking in "public places" was submitted to Wyoming House Committee #10, Labor, Health and Social Services in January of 2009. The material was used to make a 5 minute presentation to the committee.

The presentation was given by Clair Schwan, a Libertarian residing in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and a former candidate for the House of Representatives.

House Committee 10
Testimony presented by Clair A. Schwan
of
Americans for Liberty and Limited Government

Subject HB0031 Smoking in enclosed public places

We object strongly to infringement of our individual freedoms and private property rights, as proposed by HB0031.

HB 0031 is a violation of private property rights. As a government, we have no business telling private property owners how to manage the affairs of their enterprise. Private property is a cornerstone of freedom, and this bill ignores that.

People smoke in restaurants and bars as a matter of personal choice. Avoiding smoke on private property is also a matter of personal choice. Even those that work in smoking establishments do so based on personal choice. HB0031 is an infringement on individual liberty.

HB0031 promotes the idea that government should regulate the private marketplace that is naturally self-regulating. Many establishments are non-smoking because they know their customers prefer this. The marketplace will settle out to a few smoking establishments and a majority that don’t allow it or accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. That will provide personal choice to individuals and protect the rights of private property owners.

HB0031 morphs the idea of private property into “public places”. There is no such thing as a “public place”. There is public property and private property, but no “public place”. The correct perspective is that a restaurant is a private enterprise on private property that is open for business to the public, but it isn’t a “public place”.

Private businesses on private property rightly determine how they will conduct business. They can allow smoking or prohibit it. Would this legislature be compelled to challenge the policy of “no shoes, no shirt, no service” on any grounds? We’ve all seen the signs “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” and those signs remind us of their private property rights.

HB0031 sets a bad precedence of prohibiting a personal choice involving a legal product and a legal activity on private property whose owner has chosen to allow that legal activity to be conducted. Everyone present is there by choice. HB0031 proposes to do what may be popular, but is wrong according to our founding principles of freedom of choice, free enterprise and private property rights.

Many believe that since we regulate health issues in food preparation that the health issues associated with smoking can be similarly regulated. Not so. Pathogens in food are not known to anyone; therefore, regulation of food preparation is warranted. Smoking is well known and immediately apparent, so its potential harm is easily avoided.

Also, there are unintended consequences of HB0031. Let’s suppose someone opens a dining establishment that is non-smoking (inside and out). Their patrons will have the pleasure of dining in a pleasant environment indoors and on the open air patio. This gives the entrepreneur a competitive advantage over the other dining establishments that allow smoking.

Suppose that HB0031 becomes law. Now, the legislature has taken away the competitive advantage, and has given ammunition to troublemakers to challenge the no smoking policy associated with the open air patio. Once again, government interference has torpedoed private enterprise in what is supposed to be a free marketplace.

The bill allows local government to impose more strict provisions, but not the private property owner. This clearly shows that government looks down on private property rights, but gives the nod of approval to other government organizations. This is at the very least, a hint of fascism, where government is more important than the individual and their private property rights.

A reasonable alternative solution is to require posting of signs at entrances to private enterprises that are open to the public, identifying whether the establishment allows smoking, is entirely non-smoking, or accommodates both smokers and non-smokers. This allows people to avoid potential health risks, protects private property rights, and also preserves individual right of choice to smoke or enjoy a smoke free environment.

It takes courage to be free. It takes even more courage to allow others to be free – especially when they do things that are offensive. It’s our duty as individuals to protect our rights – ours and that of others. If we don’t protect everyone’s rights, then all of our rights are in jeopardy.

We are citizens that appreciate our individual freedom of choice and private property rights. The key question is whether this legislature respects individual rights and private property rights.

If possible, appear at the legislature and participate in committee hearings and listen to what they are doing on the House and Senate floor. Get involved, or don't complain that the laws we get aren't consistent with libertarian thinking.

Done with Legislature, take me back to Smoking in Public Places