Libertarian Party of Connecticut

Butt Out Of Personal Property Decisions

by Marc Guttman
Published in The New London Day on 3/1/2009

Not too long ago readers of The Day were reinformed of the outlawing, in Belmont, Calif., of smoking in residences within multi-unit apartment buildings.

Though this law is seemingly one of good intent with the respectable goal of protecting people from their neighbors' noxious and dangerous secondhand cigarette smoke, it is harmful and yet another example of our misunderstanding of property rights.

In a free society, a government could not ban smoking or any personal behavior choices on private property, unless these activities were an initiation of force against either another's rights or an indisputable public good. Secondhand smoke exposure in a space that one does not own and occupies by choice falls rather short of this very important distinctive line. Granted this may be unfortunate for nonsmokers like me, but there are great universal benefits from adhering to these fundamental tenets of freedom. To each live freely, we must ardently defend every person's right to live freely.

To libertarians this assault on our property rights is little different than the confiscation of our homes by eminent domain or the tax on our labor.

A friend recently bemoaned that the smoke in the hallway of her apartment building from her neighbor's cigarette-smoking will likely encourage her to change residences. She questioned whether she should have to move, because of someone else's behavior.

Approaching this scenario with an appreciation for self-ownership and nonaggression, I argue that the voting majority has no right to enforce on my friend's behalf her will on to her landlord nor her neighbor. Because the landlord has allowed smoking on his or her property, he or she will likely lose my friend as a customer, just as establishments in some places have lost customers who are understandably less tolerant of bothersome secondhand cigarette smoke. The important principle is that these are decisions only the property owner and the willing patrons can decide.

In fact, did not Belmont's City Council get it entirely backwards? According to an article at InsideBayArea.com, Vice Mayor Coralin Feierbach said, "police won't be stopping people from smoking on the streets. It's really aimed at those who live in multi-family dwellings." Would it not be more appropriate to ban smoking in our unavoidable and communally-invested public spaces, such as municipal buildings and public parks, and within public housing? Disregarding it being immoral, does it make sense to ban smoking in private establishments, where people gather and associate by choice, and encourage smokers to smoke outside in public spaces?

Here's an important clarification. If someone's smoke were to invade your personally-owned private space, I believe you ought to have recourse in the law to protect yourself from their intrusion. In the same way, homeowner associations or private residence owners can dictate building policy.

Cigarette smoke is significantly hazardous to individuals' health and I strongly advocate for tobacco avoidance. Our society would be significantly improved on several levels if people decreased their tobacco consumption. These facts do not in any way, however, allow citizens to pass laws preventing other citizens from smoking on private property. Mob rule is immoral, unfair, and harmful, and Belmont's law brings us further down the road away from individual rights and personal responsibility towards mob rule and tyranny.

Marc Guttman Is An Emergency Physician And Vice Chairman Of The Libertarian Party Of Connecticut. He Lives In East Lyme. His website is www.WhyLiberty.com