The increasing number of smoking bans and debates surrounding them are stark reminders of our country’s abandonment of individual rights. Proponents argue the perils of secondhand smoke, calling it a health issue, while opponents decry flawed studies and warn of economic losses.

All of these arguments take for granted that such issues should be decided by vote. Advocates on both sides of the issue make it their assignment to sway public opinion on the merits of allowing smoking in bars and restaurants, but no one questions whether the public has a right to decide this issue in the first place.

I’m questioning it.

The issue of smoking in bars and restaurants should be off-limits to government and majority vote, regardless of economic and health arguments. The reason is simple: Individual business owners and patrons have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This, the principle of individual rights, is the founding principle of America and essential to any free and civilized society. Unfortunately, the concept of rights is only a fuzzy notion in today’s society and is often incorrectly equated with democracy or majority rule.

Gov. Jim Doyle encapsulated this view during Lance Armstrong’s recent visit to promote a statewide ban, saying “It’s not a complicated issue. It’s not like trying to put together all the pieces of a big health care plan. This is basically a vote, ‘Are you for banning tobacco in public places or are you against it?’ So let’s put that in front of the Legislature, and let’s have a vote.” The only obstacle, he says, is “a small group keeping the will of the people from being done.”

The idea that the “will of the people” should prevail simply because they will it is a direct attack on individual rights. The founders of this country explicitly recognized unrestrained democracy as a form of tyranny, which is why America is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” If freedom is a value, it does not matter if it is destroyed by a single tyrant or an entire nation — freedom is destroyed just the same.

If individual rights should decide the smoking ban issue rather than majority vote, what constitutes upholding rights? Essentially, individual rights act to eliminate force in human affairs. Rights prohibit one party from attempting to gain a value from another by force or by fraud.

But today, the concept of rights has been stood on its head. Instead of protecting individuals from force, rights have become synonymous with entitlement. We hear things like, “the right to a smoke-free environment,” “the right to certain working conditions” and “the right to health care.” These are not rights, but a violation of rights. A right that forces others to provide a desired service or particular environment cannot be a right.

The failure to distinguish between force and voluntary interaction leads to a complete inversion of the meaning of rights, such as Lance Armstrong’s claim that when you smoke in an establishment “you have violated somebody else’s basic rights.”

Such claims blank out the fact that a business and its customers come together by mutual consent, which is the very essence of a free society. Mr. Armstrong and others seek to establish the “right” to dictate these interactions by force.

Smoking ban advocates claim people shouldn’t have to choose between a job or dining spot and their health. Yet these are precisely the choices that one’s life depends on and no one can escape. Smoking bans do not eliminate the need to choose; they simply force a particular conclusion on everyone. Just because some majority doesn’t want to choose, that doesn’t give them the right to eliminate everyone’s freedom to choose.

Some argue that because a business is open to the public, it does not enjoy the same rights as private entities. And while many laws do treat business owners as second-class citizens, there’s no justification for it. If getting what you want by force is wrong when dealing with your neighbor, it is equally wrong when dealing with your local tavern owner. Owners have a right to conduct business with customers and employees by mutual consent. If either party does not accept the conditions, it is free to go its own way.

Arguments over lost business, health risks and majority will are only a distraction. To answer Mr. Doyle: It’s not a complicated issue. Are you for individual rights, or are you against them? This is the debate we should be having.

?

Jim Allard ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in biology.