|
Slippery slope
Neo-prohibitionists will
never be satisfied
One problem political debaters often encounter when using a slippery-slope
argument is that it’s easy to overstate one’s fears. So why do so many still use them? Simple; the argument is
usually prescient. The slippery slope is employed when it’s easy to see that if A happens, B will follow and the next
thing you know, we’re somewhere in the middle of the alphabet, with one side trying to hold the line and the other pushing
hard to get to Z.
In the case of anti-tobacco zealots, Z is the total prohibition of smoking. In the lifetimes of many readers, the United States has seen smokers pushed into diminishing spaces, to the point where many
states, including Colorado, have some type of indoor smoking ban, even on private property. We’ve railed against
such bans as intrusions on property rights and free association rights, and will continue to do so. We’ve warned that
if government can ban smoking on private property such as bars, restaurants and stores,
it’s just a matter of time until the neo-prohibitionists set their sights on automobiles and homes. Sadly, once again,
we have to say we told you so.
Under the umbrella of protecting public health, anti-tobacco
activists in several communities are working to limit smokers’ ability to light up in their own homes, if they live in
multi-family dwellings such as apartment buildings and condominiums. Indoor smoking bans usually include public areas such as hallways and lobbies.
Now the prohibitionists want to go into smokers’ living rooms and remove the ashtrays.
As
usual in such efforts, activists are launching the battle in an arena where they have a lot of support and some genuine leverage
— public housing. In Seattle, where an indoor smoking ban went into effect a year ago, some are asking why nonsmoking
tenants of public housing apartments have to suffer with their neighbors’ second-hand smoke. They point out that those who rely on public housing have fewer
housing options than renters in other situations and can’t move to other digs. It makes for a good argument, but it’s
another slippery slope. If it makes sense for public housing apartments, why not extend it to privately owned apartment buildings?
Once it’s accepted practice to ban smoking in rental homes because of smoke drifting under the door, across the hallway and under the
door into a neighboring unit, what’s to stop the prohibitionists from applying the same logic to single-family dwellings?
After all, if a homeowner is sitting on his deck on a summer evening enjoying an after-dinner smoke and the smoke drifts into his neighbor’s window, isn’t that
the same thing?
It’s not that we’re unsympathetic to those with smoke allergies or pulmonary conditions that make exposure to smoke a concern. But the reality is that there is only so much that
can be done to limit environmental exposure to things that aggravate those conditions. In the case of public housing, it’s
perfectly fine for government to set smoking rules in the units; government is the landlord. In Seattle, the King County
Housing Authority is dealing with health and sensitivity concerns by making some buildings smoke-free while leaving others
available to smokers. That’s a plan that could be applied by private landlords
as well, taking away one of the prohibitionists’ main arguments (assuming the landlord owns multiple
buildings). But it should be the decision of property owners, not government.
Too many times,
anti-smoking activists aren’t satisfied with a reasonable accommodation and push for an all-or-nothing plan that leaves
smokers and property owners out in the cold. Doing so infringes
on the owners’ right to use his property as he sees fit. And if we allow government to limit property rights in the
all-powerful name of protecting health, where will it end? New York City
has already banned trans fats from restaurants; will other cities and states hop aboard that train? Or will some ban trans
fats from pre-packaged foods on store shelves? Enacting bans in the interest of protecting health removes individuals’
freedom of choice and responsibility for their own well being. It’s a slippery slope, indeed, and it starts at our own
front doors.
|
