Secondhand smoke: annoyance or assault?

March 18, 2009 by Don Watkins

I received a number of responses to my anti-smoking paternalism op-ed, arguing that exposing others to secondhand smoke is tantamount to assault, which the government needs to protect us from. They in effect raised the question: Does your right to smoke end where my nose begins?

When people think of the problem of secondhand smoke, they often think of a hostess working eight hours a day in a smoke-filled restaurant, or an apartment-dweller whose neighbor’s three-pack a day habit finds its way through the vents and into his own home. Now I think the solution to those kinds of cases is: property rights. When property is private, property owners can set whatever smoking policy they wish. Those who abhor smoke can congregate on their own property; those who disagree are free to go elsewhere.

But what about the possibility of incidental contact with smoke? Is that something the government should prevent or punish?

Here’s my take.

The claims of the anti-smoking lobbyists notwithstanding, I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that the occasional, incidental whiff of smoke is harmful to a normal person’s health. At worst, it’s like walking by car exhaust fumes: over time, in certain quantities, for certain people, it may have certain deleterious health effects. And just as car exhaust doesn’t make driving a crime, so the possibility that others might inhale cigarette smoke doesn’t make smoking a crime.

Sure, secondhand smoke can be an annoyance. But I don’t have the right to be free from all annoying effects others can have on me. A crying child may irritate me, a cab driver’s foul odor may disgust me, even the sight of an unattractive person may make my day less pleasant. But none of those is a rights violation that calls for government action. It’s simply not true that your right to smoke ends where my nose begins–any more than your right to eat garlic ends where my nose begins.

Some annoyance is an inevitable byproduct of living in society.

(I think Ayn Rand’s comments on the issue of pollution are relevant to thinking about this question; see also pages 9-10 of Ayn Rand Answers.)