Yes, this is another post by a libertarian complaining about a State-dictated smoking ban. (And, totally coincidentally, The Prodigy's awesome song Breathe is playing on my iPod. They're telling me to "inhale" and "exhale" -- I'm assuming they're referring to tobacco? If I was pro smoking-bans, I'd argue that they're telling me to breathe oxygen ... way too obvious, I say.)

On February 19, the Virginia General Assembly gave final approval to a plan that prohibits smoking in most of Virginia's bars and restaurants. The bill was bitterly opposed from both sides -- bars and restaurants opposed it as too strict, while anti-smoking proponents opposed it because they felt it didn't go far enough. Looks like we have a compromise.

The libertarian argument against State-imposed smoking bans is well trod: it rests with the sanctity of property rights and voluntary exchange -- that a person is free to establish the rules of conduct -- of contract -- on his or her private property.

Yes, that includes smoking. If I own a bar, and I want smoking to be an option, then I should be free to announce that my bar is a smoking establishment. If potential customers object, then they are free to take their business to competitors. The same guideline holds true for my employees -- if they want to work for me, they agree to the terms of our employer-employee contract. (With criminal prosecution available if there is any aggression, of course.)

However, under the nanny state, Americans are not entitled to freedom of contract. And, since most people do not smoke, and many nonsmokers (including me) are disgusted by the olfactory and inaesthetic qualities of smoking, the poor smokers -- and business owners -- get short shrift.

I asked a friend how he felt about the Virginia smoking ban. He was all for it, he said, since he could now go to bars without leaving smelling like a burnt Marlboro. However -- and this is a crucial point that many people do not see -- what happens when other behaviors fall out of fashion with mainstream America, and are subsequently banned? We are already seeing this with the trans-fat bans in New York and California. Here are some potential bans that could be passed, based on the public-health "risk":

• Banning using large quantities of sugar in meal items -- desert-lovers, beware!
  
• Banning using large quanitites of fat in meal items -- french-fry lovers, beware!
  
• Banning the use of offensive perfume, to prevent causing an allergic or asthmatic reaction in customers -- Drakar-lovers, beware!
  
• Banning using large quantities of L-tryptophan in meal items, to prevent drivers from falling asleep while driving home -- turkey-lovers, beware!
  

It is important to realize that the public will never run out of special-interest groups who have their pet causes, and who will go to any lengths to advance their causes. Taken individually, the average person might not see anything wrong with limiting the quantities of trans fat or sugar in meal items, or with banning smoking. However, State's incremental cauterizing of liberties is pernicious because it is so gradual, and affects only a small portion of the population at a time.

Sure, you may not like going to restaurants that allow smoking but, if there is a market, there would be restaurants that ban smoking out of the desire to capture just that population group. What happens, however, when the State bans YOUR activity that perhaps only a small portion of the population shares? You will have no standing to insist that others defend your right to eat cookies with lots of sugar, or lots of turkey.

Therein lies the road to serfdom, indeed.