perfidy

In response to Windy City Mike’s comments a couple days ago:

Mike is right to point out that passing legislation against certain behaviors based on what is good for people is dangerous and usually wrongheaded. He's also correct that it's the "in thing". I would like to extend his analysis a little, and bring up the deeper issues that may or may not be at stake.

I see in the Boston Globe today that a total ban on smoking in Massachusetts is in the offing. Whaaaaat? Are those bastids on Beacon Hill caving to the tiny liberal enclaves in Cambridge and Amherst? Do the squint-eyed Puritan moralizers carry the day? Quite the contrary! Check this out:

Two days after Boston outlawed smoking in taverns and nightclubs, momentum quickened on Beacon Hill yesterday to extend the ban statewide, as pivotal adversaries from past years abandoned the fight while surprising new backers emerged in force. . . .

The groundswell of support comes at a time when more cities and towns than ever before - 78 - have adopted local prohibitions against all workplace smoking, covering one-third of the state's population. Politicians and restaurant owners from those communities have become vocal supporters of a statewide law, in part to prevent bars in communities without a smoking ban from poaching customers.

But just as important as the voices being raised in favor of smoking prohibition are those that have fallen silent under the golden dome of the state capitol. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association, a muscular presence against the smoking ban in earlier debates, sent no one to testify yesterday at a hearing about the proposed ban before the joint health care committee. And tobacco company representatives offered no public statements at the hearing. Veterans of the smoking wars in Massachusetts could identify only one or two lobbyists present with ties to the tobacco industry.

Though it’s not perfect, the proposed ban is the result of a grassroots movement that has spread throughout the state.

The difference between the New York and Boston cases is that New York brought the dancing ban down from on high, and the proposed Massachusetts smoking ban springs from a general popular movement. That is the essence of federalism, and it creates a conflict for me. On one hand, I favor smoking bans in bars and restaurants because I prefer to go out for a night and come home free of smoke-reek and a headache. If the people of Massachusetts decide this is the way they should go, I applaud it. It's a local issue, settled locally. Many issues are best decided this way.

But on the other hand, what if Massachusetts also outright banned assault weapons, gay marriage, or abortion? Each of these issues raises serious questions of individual liberties versus public interest. Just this week the Ninth Circuit Court revived the question of whether the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to gun ownership. Gay Marriage may or may not threaten the Full Faith And Credit Clause, since couples joined in Vermont could return to Utah and apply for spousal benefits. Abortion pits the liberties of mothers against the liberties of the unborn, and extends the debate over citizenship into totally new arenas.

Where does the line fall between the right of a community to legislate behaviors to maintain public order, and the liberty of citizens to act freely where they are not injuring others? Do smoking bans really address these same fundamental issues, or is smoking in public subject to a different set of ethical and (pseudo-)legal tests?

What I'm saying is, I like the smoking bans where I live. I just can't find a way to justify them.