"Authoritarian" is a strong word. If the federal Patriot Act doesn't qualify for the term, surely it is inappropriate in discussion of the simple matter of banning smoking in New Hampshire restaurants and bars. But Jon Wisniewski '07 uses it ("Not a Fan of NH Smoking Ban," Feb. 22). Wisniewski apparently opposes the smoking ban on the grounds that it is an unwarranted government intrusion into citizens' lives. But his case seriously undervalues practicality and simple common sense. The benefits of the ban far outweigh the costs.
Take a look at the history of another widely touted smoking ban. In March 2003, New York City banned smoking in all indoor spaces open to the public, including restaurants and bars. While the proposal was being debated the city council, doomsayers were numerous and loud. Along with the usual civil liberties arguments, there were dire prognostications of gloom and doom for smokers, the restaurant and bar industries, and indeed the city itself.
But none of that has panned out. Two years after the ban, the New York Times reviewed the change in February 2005, explaining that "a vast majority of bar and restaurant patrons interviewed last week, including self-described hard-core smokers, said they were surprised to find themselves pleased." Besides the cleaner air, patrons mentioned other unexpected benefits including cheaper dry cleaning bills and a new social order to the bar scene. There is now a "smoker's scene" on the sidewalk outside bars.
The restaurant and bar industries have not been hurt either. Their performance has closely followed the economy of the city as a whole -- it has improved. In 2002, James McBratney, who owns two restaurants in New York City, was one of the most outspoken critics of the proposed ban. He is a critic no longer, and customers seem to like it.
"I have to admit, I've seen no falloff in business in either establishment," he told the Times.
Now we turn to civil liberties. Does the ban restrict them? Why yes, I suppose it does. So what about those foundational documents, and that half-millennium of history, that are supposed to protect us from such restrictions? Is it not my birthright as a citizen of the United States to act voluntarily, as Wisniewski says?
It isn't in this case. Apparently, neither the documents nor the history contain any guarantee of smoking rights, implicit or explicit. On April 8, 2004, a federal judge upheld the smoking ban as constitutional, ruling that it did not "unduly burden smokers' rights to freedom of speech, association, travel or any other protected privileges," detailed the Times in April 2004.
At the end of the day, the New York City smoking ban, like most choices, entailed a trade-off. It was a small, legal restriction on civil liberties in exchange for a hugely popular and nearly universal improvement to quality of life. To those who would chose the civil liberties in that trade, I say -- well, I really have nothing to say. Just get over yourself. As for the slippery slope argument, the judiciary exists for a reason.
Think of it this way. With no ban, the status quo prevails, simply because that is what everyone is used to. But this is one of those rare cases in which a restriction in choice improves life for nearly everyone. In light of this, the common term "nanny legislation" is inappropriate in this case. The smoking ban is friend legislation. In banning smoking, the New York City Council acted as a friend. The New Hampshire legislature should as well.
