On Friday, April 19, the Binghamton College Libertarians hosted their smoke-out event. It was quite a sight to behold — students gathering around, lighting up cigarettes, discussing the moral implications of a smoking ban and generally having a good time.
The libertarian premise is that the government’s sole purpose is to defend its citizens’ personal liberty, and nothing more. You can place your knife wherever you like, just not in your neighbor’s belly. The harm principle, as articulated by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty,” states that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
So, in an ideal libertarian state, nearly all laws regarding personal conduct that do not directly harm another are rendered unjust. Personal autonomy and rational decision-making abilities are honored completely. If one wishes to turn to heroin as a weekend pastime, so be it. An authoritative body may rightfully recommend different behavior, but may not arrest the addict for use.
This rhetoric would essentially eliminate all drug and alcohol consumption laws that don’t involve a scenario in which such consumption is dangerous to others, as well as many market restrictions and other governmental oversight.
Personal liberty is the core of mankind’s spirit. To restrict one’s autonomy is to oppress the very essence of an individual.
The trustees of the SUNY system have approved a ban on smoking, in the hopes of creating smoke-free campuses, which will begin in January of 2014. The Binghamton College Libertarians see this as a massive infringement on personal liberty and one’s ability to make rational choices.
The majority of SUNY’s rationale is based on cancer statistics, addiction rates, personal health effects, etc. However, this reasoning could easily be applied to many other substances, such as soda and alcohol. Yes, cigarettes are unhealthy. This is not something that intelligent people disagree about. However, smoking is a lifestyle choice, and it can be a rather enjoyable one.
Governmental regulation based on an opinionated conception of what one ought and ought not to do is a dangerous route. There are no objective criteria for why one should not harm himself, and any authoritative body approaches oppression when personal preference is translated into law.
But here is the rhetorical problem for the libertarian group. Their grounds for opposing this ban are completely sound and quite powerful with regard to SUNY’s personal health reasons behind their decision. However, there are studies that show the presence of secondhand smoke intake in outdoor public settings.
In 2009, the University of Georgia study suggested that outdoor smoking areas may pose health hazards.
The study, thought to be the first to assess levels of a nicotine byproduct known as cotinine in nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors, found levels up to 162 percent greater than in the control group. The results appear in the November issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.
If this is the case, the libertarian principle will no longer apply. If it is shown, without a reasonable doubt, that secondhand smoke poses a hazard in outdoor settings, the harm principle will no longer serve as justification for claiming a smoking ban unjust.
There are other similar studies which include much more detail, but the point is that a libertarian justification against smoke-free campuses must be able to show that a health hazard is not imposed on anyone else.
If my rational decision puts another at risk against his or her will, the government may justly impose.
If a libertarian movement wishes to combat the smoking ban effectively, it must show that public smoking does not impose health risks on other rational decision-makers who, if they had the choice, would prefer to not be subject to secondhand smoke.
This is a difficult task, but paramount in labeling the SUNY smoking ban as unjust and an infringement on personal liberty.