- The Washington Times - Saturday, July 6, 2002

Why did a rule change made by one of the thousands of co-ops boards in this country make national news? The association at 180 West End Ave. in New York recently decided to ban new occupants from smoking in their own apartments.
Some would say that residents know ahead of time that co-op contracts give associations the right to make such rules, and in this case no current resident will be barred from smoking. Others see the decision as a sign of growing political correctness and intolerance. Both sides are in part correct.
The ostensive reason for the ban was that tobacco smoke travels through the building's ventilation system into nonsmoker's apartments. (Full disclosure here: I don't smoke cigarettes.) This is a legitimate concern, especially for individuals who might be allergic to such smoke. Assuming that it does not violate some explicit or implicit contract right, I suspect that this decision is a proper exercise of the property rights of the association. (The same principle applies to condominiums.) A co-op association is a private club, and members agree before joining to abide by the club rules.
One might foresee some enforcement problems with the ban. Will new residents be subject to surprise inspections by co-op cops? A better solution might have been for a private concern like Inflitech in Northern Virginia to install equipment and filters to prevent the smell of smoke, or the kimchi or garlic cooking in your neighbor's place for that matter, from wafting your way. Technology solves many problems.
But while the decision of this co-op association might have been a proper and well-meaning exercise of property rights, rulings of this sort do raise concerns about a growing intolerance that could actually endanger property rights.
The social virtue of tolerance means that individuals might not like one another's beliefs or lifestyles but they leave each other free to believe and live as they see fit. Intolerance means individuals seek out the nearest government judge, politician or bureaucrat to impose their vision of a "good society" on one another.
The war against smoking is a classic case of intolerance translating into government policies that run roughshod over liberty and property rights. For example, smoking bans in many restaurants at first were choices by private owners who thought their customers would prefer a smoke-free environment. Now governments in many cities have bans smoking in all restaurants. But this should be a matter for restaurant owners to decide. If a customer doesn't like eating in a smoke-filled room, he can simply not patronize that restaurant.
We see government-mandated bans on smoking in office buildings. We saw recently the town of Friendship Heights try to ban smoking outdoors on city streets. A few years ago the Occupational Safety and Health Administration considered a rule that would ban smoking in private homes if owners had home offices and if more than 10 individuals plumbers, delivery men visited per year. Note that the ban would not have been just for the time the visitors were in the office or during work hours. It would have been at all times in all parts of the house.
Fortunately that proposal never made it into the rulebooks. But it illustrates that many of our fellow citizens no longer have the tolerant souls and morals of free men and women. They have the souls and morals of busybodies and petty tyrants who want to run their neighbors' lives.
The danger is that as more co-ops or condo associations exercise their legitimate right to ban smoking, politicians will jump on the bandwagon and steer it in a coercive direction, perhaps first requiring nonsmoking sections in buildings, next banning smoking in very large condos, then, finally, in all of them.
This is not a condemnation of private associations acting in the interests of their members. In a morally healthy society the act of a co-op banning smoking would be proof that freedom allows individuals to associate with whom they want and on whatever terms they want. It is a condemnation of a political system that gives free reign to politicians who would rather rule than protect our rights. And it is a warning that without the social virtue of tolerance, many citizens will stand by as politicians limit the freedom of others.
A non-smoker might reason, "The restriction doesn't affect me."
But eventually freedoms that one does cherish will be targeted.
Intolerance is more toxic to our republic than the nasty stuff in cigarettes. Property rights and tolerance are both pillars of a free society that should not be allowed to go up in smoke.

Edward L. Hudgins is Washington director of the Objectivist Center.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide