In 2001, I fought against anti-smoking by-laws in Ottawa, Canada alongside two other like-minded individuals (Mike Kennedy and Gino Milito). We formed two business entities – Smoker’s Choice and Capital Hospitality, and organized over 20 local bars and restaurants, the owners of which were outraged at being coerced by the government to discriminate against smokers. We exploited obvious loopholes in the poorly-written legislation…but, essentially we lost this battle to the intimidation tactics employed by Ottawa bylaw officers.

There is a debate being waged over whether anti-smoking bylaws governing bars and restaurants should be put into place in Chicago (here: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2007/05/violation_of_ri.html#comments). The arguments in favor of legislation that I’m encountering are ones I have become well-accustomed to:

1. Second-hand smoke is harmful. (Don’t expose yourself to it.)

2. People should be able to enjoy all of the establishments in their community…i.e. business owners have an obligation (legal?) to accommodate everyone. (Hmmm….wrong place, wrong century…communist Russia maybe…?)

3. Despite anti-smoking bylaws already in place, “business is booming,” so what’s all the fuss about?! (Individual rights – what they are, and what they aren’t. Educate yourself.)

4. The government needs to protect us from ourselves with anti-smoking by-laws, along with regulations concerning narcotics, driver licensing, etc. (No it doesn’t – and certainly not at my expense.)

5. Smoking is not healthy for you. So you should quit anyways – we’re just helping you along!! “If I were you, I would be more concerned about the fact that you are so physically dependent on a product that you can’t function for an hour without a [cigarette].”
(A compelling argument…one that has nothing to do with legislating away individual freedoms, unfortnately.)

6. If the government didn’t regulate bars and restaurants they would kill us all with food-poisoning and second-hand smoke. (You, maybe. Personally, I prefer to patronize reputable establishments that are concerned with the health of safety of their customers – and I think most people would do likewise.)

7. “There is scientific support that 2nd hand smoke hurts nonsmokers, seatbelts and helmets save lives.” (What does this have to do legislation? Is the government going to force me to use condoms, take Claritin, make bungee-jumping illegal?)

…and my favourites…

8. “Personally I’d rather live with the regulations because they benefit me far more than they harm me.” (What a brilliant way to see things! Let’s legislate for the hell of it.)

9. “Since smokers’ behavior is not changing voluntarily, the laws are being passed.” (Hey, we gave them a chance! Right? I told them I didn’t like them smoking…but they didn’t listen.)

10. “Why should smoking be viewed any differently than all of the other aspects of businesses regulated by the government? Business owners have to comply with all sorts of local, state and federal regulations concerning everything from how much they pay their workers to what hours they can be open to how many bathrooms their establishment must have, etc.” (Well…we already have legislation…let’s have more! What harm can it do? Sure it might mean a little less “freedom” for business owners – but they’re not so free as it is, are they? Besides the place will smell nicer, and think of all the nice non-smoking customers they’ll attract. They’ll thank us for it!)

11. “Property rights do not trump the rights of the community.” (No? Thomas Jefferson would argue otherwise. I suggest you get on a boat to Cuba.)

I urge you to come and show your support.