Why I do not support the smoking ban (and it's not because I'm a smoker...)

I distinctly remember in 2007 visiting my good friend Genie in DC; it was the first time I had spent time in a place with a smoking ban in restaurants and bars. After a few trips out to bars and nightclubs over the weekend, I realized that I liked coming home and not smelling like smoke.
Because I was forced to smoke outdoors, my clothes never picked up the smell which typically comes with a night on the town. I’m sure my clothes still had the faint smell of smoke, but nothing like the stench which accompanies one home after a night at the bar.
On a more personal note, the “smoker stigma” wasn’t as apparent. Being a single young lady, I am more than aware of the stigma attached to smokers. Because smokers were relegated to the outdoors, it was less obvious to others whether one was a smoker or not.
Another side-effect of the smoking ban? I noticed I smoked a lot less during a night out. Since lighting up required me to leave the group conversation, I naturally did it a lot less.
Overall, after my experiences in DC and subsequently after, I am in favor of the consequences as a result of smoking bans.
Does this mean I am in favor of smoking bans? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is no, I am not.

Smoking bans instituted by local and state governments seem to boil down to a few key issues: workplace safety, personal property rights, individual freedom, and public health. By addressing these issues, I hope to make an argument against government mandated smoking bans.
Workplace safety is cited as the reason for Michigan’s ban on smoking. The argument being, workers’ health is put at risk through exposure to second-hand smoke. Therefore, smoking should be banned from all workplaces. In essence, the primary targets of this law are restaurants and bars; more specifically, the customers of restaurants and bars.
Currently, state law prohibits smoking in the kitchen or behind the bar as a matter of food and drink safety. Most restaurants and bars require their employees to smoke in either a break room or outdoors where they cannot be seen by patrons, especially during typical dining hours. This is a consumer driven practice.
The second driving force behind smoking bans is public health. I’m confident all of you are familiar with the arguments behind this, so I won’t bother repeating them.
This leaves two key issues: individual freedom and personal property rights. It is these two issues at the crux of my opposition to government sponsored smoking bans. You may regard my stance on these issues to be overly simplistic but I feel that people often make things too complicated. Sometimes it’s better to keep things simple.
Individual freedom involves personal choice. It is a choice to enter a restaurant that allows smoking. It is also a choice to work at one. Market demands have been met by many restaurants and bars that ban smoking completely. This trend is really only beginning to take hold. As more patrons demand a smoke-free environment, we will see more smoke-free establishments.
Workers also have choices. They can choose to work in a smoking establishment or not. In fact, there are always opportunities out there for lower-income work (waiting tables is typically considered lower-income.) Even in our broken economy with record unemployment, you will find plenty of advertisements for jobs that require no education. Waiting tables is physically tiring, usually doesn’t involve regular hours, can have erratic pay due to tips, has very little opportunity for advancement, and doesn’t typically provide any health or retirement benefits.
What I believe this all boils down to are the rights of property owners. The other three issues can be linked to individuals and their personal choices. This legislation takes away personal choice of property owners, infringes on their rights as individuals.
Government already exerts too many regulations on our personal property. I consider this a slippery slope and am opposed to further government control exerted on our personal lives. Market forces have already dictated the beginning of the change this law will achieve. If we are already seeing these changes, why should the government become involved?
Each time a law like this is enacted, it slowly changes understanding of government’s role within our lives. For those that admire the European style of government, this is a good thing. I am not one of those people. Our nation was founded upon different principles. I believe in the individual. I believe in the power of personal choice. And I believe that this law infringes on both of these.
This law is another way of the government telling you that it knows what is best for us, that we are not capable of making those decisions as individuals. This is why I do not support government-led smoking bans.