In Defense of Individual Rights
by Senator Brent Hill
Last month I announced that I would introduce legislation to prohibit smoking in indoor places of employment, restaurants, retail stores, childcare facilities, schools, and other public places, as well as within twenty feet of entrances to such facilities. Since that time, I have received letters and emails from citizens across the state expressing their support. People who suffer from respiratory diseases, asthma, serious allergies, heart disease, cystic fibrosis, and other illnesses have long awaited this law that will afford them the freedom to enter restaurants and stores without endangering their health from secondhand smoke. Employees who have had to work in smoking areas and restaurant owners who favor a state-wide standard have pledged their support.
The opposition has also been fierce. The tobacco industry has tried to shift the focus from the proven health hazards of secondhand smoke to the controversial social issue of individual rights. Let’s have a look at two major components of their argument.
Tobacco Industry Claim: A business owner should have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking in his establishment.
The Truth: With every right comes responsibility. When a store owner opens his business to the public, he accepts the responsibility to provide a safe environment for his customers and employees. The State Health Department regulates businesses to protect patrons from harmful products and practices. OSHA is charged with insuring that the employer provides a safe work environment for employees.
A store owner also has a responsibility to ensure access to all customers regardless of race or religion or physical disabilities. Hundreds of disabled Idahoans are guaranteed access to public facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while thousands of Idahoans are denied access because they suffer from respiratory and other diseases.
The tobacco industry would have restaurant owners believe that prohibiting smoking will put them out of business. Just the opposite is true. No one will be at a competitive disadvantage; every business will be subject to the same rules. After New York passed its smokefree restaurant law, 96% of restaurant goers said they ate out the same or more often. There are more N.Y. restaurants in business now than before the smoking ban and most are more profitable. Studies confirm that prohibiting smoking in the workplace helps employers realize lower maintenance and repair costs, lower insurance costs, and higher productivity and morale among nonsmoking employees.
The U.S. Surgeon General has made it clear that simply establishing “designated smoking areas” within a facility does not remove the danger to health. As one frustrated sufferer asked, “Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a swimming pool?” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated it more diplomatically: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” Inherent to every right is responsibility.
Tobacco Industry Claim: A person has a right to smoke whenever and wherever he chooses.
The Truth: When one individual’s right violates another’s right, which takes precedence? This is a difficult question with which I have wrestled myself. Is one person’s right to enjoy a cigarette with dessert greater than another person’s right to health? We have some individual rights that are even more sacred than the right to smoke, but even they do not come without responsibility. Our Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms, but that does not give us the right to go into a public school waving around a handgun. We have the right to free speech, but that does not give us the right to yell “FIRE” in a public auditorium. There must be a balance. Is a smoker’s right to pleasure greater than your right to health and safety? I don’t believe so. That is why drinking is generally legal for adults, but driving while intoxicated is not.
As I have searched my soul for the right balance, I reflected on one of this
nation’s earliest declarations of rights. It states that “all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It also
states that governments are instituted to secure those rights.
How are we protecting life when 53,000 Americans are dying every year from secondhand smoke?
How are we protecting liberty when millions of Americans are denied access to public facilities because of their health conditions?
How are we protecting one’s right to pursue happiness when 300,000 children are condemned to a life of respiratory diseases from secondhand smoke?
Examination of our Idaho Constitution reveals wording very similar to the above lines from the Declaration of Independence. I took an oath of office to uphold that Constitution. I must honor the promise I made to the people of this state. To me, this legislation is in defense of the individual rights of our citizens.