Tomorrow will mark a sad day for democracy in the state of Maryland. On May 17, 2007, Gov. Martin O'Malley signed into law a statewide ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and private clubs.
For some, a ban on smoking indoors may sound good. And certainly something must be done to essentially an epidemic that is damaging our citizens. Despite this, Feb. 1 marks a dark moment for the relationship between the state and individual.
It is very true that millions of individuals in our nation are suffering from an addiction to smoking. Smoking is a horrible thing and condemns so many to a slow painful death to end a shortened life. Today, after the lawsuits and studies, we all know the detrimental effects of smoking and what it does to the body.
This ban on smoking indoors, however, infringes on a number of basic rights that should not be ignored when dealing with smokers. The first of which is minority rights. A minority is not necessarily a group of people determined by their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. A minority, in a democracy, could best be defined as a group of people of different, or even conflicting, character and interests from the majority. Children are minorities, as are farmers, seniors, union workers, the wealthy, the list goes on. The framers recognized the threat in a democracy of the tyranny of the majority - namely they were concerned with the poor taking from the wealthy - and that is why our Constitution is heavily geared toward the rights of the minority.
In today's world, smokers are a minority, and that's a good thing. I'm not a smoker, but I recognize that because smoking is taboo and it happens to be in fashion to crack down on it, as it should be, that does not give the state the right to do whatever it wishes to individuals who cannot fight back. This includes racking up the prices of cigarettes to exorbitant prices with tax after tax and kicking smokers out of restaurants, bars and even private clubs.
At the end of the day smokers get hit twice. Once by the tobacco companies, who should have been sued, as they were, and the state should maintain heavy oversight over their actions and regulation because they have proven to be untrustworthy. And secondly, smokers are hit by the state, punishing them for their highly addictive habit.
I doubt making smokers second-hand citizens will help them give up smoking, just as over 40 years of surgeon general warnings have failed to help 48 million American citizens to quit. Instead smokers will just lose even more dignity while doing it and then be hit again by the pneumonia as this ban becomes official in February. Couldn't the state legislature and O'Malley have pushed the date back to a warmer month?
This is not to overlook the apparently often forgotten issue of private property. It would be fine for Maryland to restrict smoking in the State House or other government buildings. But to go into private institutions and say that one's business or a club cannot allow someone to smoke is going to far. These businesses are privately owned. They're not all chains - many owners are people just trying to make a buck. Now, businesses can get a waiver if they can prove this ban is hurting their business, as it will, but that only lasts until 2011. Then they are left to the dogs.
The issue is not whether smoking is bad; it is whether banning smoking in private institutions is also bad. Finally, as for the issue of second-hand smoke in restaurants and bars, smoking and non-smoking is a fine solution. Maybe this is segregation in some way, but at least both individuals can be inside on a snowy February night. It never bothered me when sitting at T.G.I. Friday's that there were smokers sitting on the other side of the building. We have gone too far in sanitizing America. The state should mandate that restaurants and bars must offer a state approved non-smoking option for its patrons by 2011. That solution seems reasonable and dignified for all involved.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.