Seeking balance: Life versus liberty

[ NOVEMBER 5, 2009 - OKLAHOMA CITY, OK ] - John Rolfe arrived at the Jamestown Settlement in Virginia in 1609 and is credited today as the first settler to successfully raise tobacco for commercial use.

Four hundred years have revealed much about the dangers of tobacco, and legislative bodies the world over have since implemented bans of various forms on indoor and, more recently, outdoor smoking.

In 2003 Oklahoma became one of the first states in America to regulate public smoking, when it enacted legislation prohibiting smoking in indoor workplaces. The ban included restaurants and bars, unless a separate ventilation system was installed. Some business owners spent thousands of dollars to comply; others became non-smoking establishments.

For six years, the embers smoldered.

Then, last week, anti-smoking advocates called on Oklahoma lawmakers to close loopholes and require all restaurants and bars to be completely smoke free. Why? To protect the public from secondhand smoke—shown to cause the same problems as active smoking: lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments like emphysema, bronchitis and asthma. Bans on smoking in bars and restaurants undoubtedly improve air quality in such establishments, and—surprisingly—there is little evidence of a negative economic impact.

Proponents of smoking bans also cite employee safety. Employers face significant legal risks from employees exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. These risks include workers' compensation claims (illness or injury attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke on the job); disability discrimination claims (failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for a worker with a disability—like asthma—that could be exacerbated by exposure to secondhand smoke); and claims of failure to provide a safe workplace.

No doubt there are benefits to banning public smoking. But are there also risks to liberty?

Opponents of smoking bans claim that, if carried to the extreme, most everything could be considered a public health concern. Consider these examples:

Oklahoma has the eighth highest obesity rate in the country—a country with the highest obesity rate in the world. Are McDonalds french fries next on the hit list? I sure hope not.

Diagnoses of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, is rising steadily. Will our legislature proscribe sun exposure? Likewise, will skyrocketing diabetes rates one day prevent potentially chubby children from making the rounds on Halloween night?

Opponents assert that property rights and personal freedoms, as stated and protected in the U.S. Constitution, are arguably the most important of all rights. Founding father John Adams said, "Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." Private property does not belong to the public. Members of the public can go elsewhere if they wish to avoid secondhand smoke. And, with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation, surely no Oklahoman is forced to work somewhere that lawfully permits smoking.

Those who would protect public smoking have some interesting arguments. And while it's true that all poor health choices bear an indirect cost to society, perhaps this is the distinguishing factor: Unlike publicly enjoying french fries, sunshine or treats, smoking also has a direct impact on people in the immediate environment.

When asked to comment on this important issue, Mötley Crüe issued the following statement through their publicist: "….don't you fill me up with your rule. Everybody knows that smoking ain't allowed in school [or restaurants, bars or other public places]…"