A Franciscan Friar once told me of a woman who converted to Christianity after she had a vision of hell in all its Stygian glory. Hell was, to be sure, a smoke-filled kettle of wailing, gnashing, and boats of human flesh—all the creature comforts of a Second Grade lesson on “Why One Should Behave.” While I am not a religious person, I had a similar vision of this underworld last year in New York. This time, it was sans smoke.

It was a crisp autumn day in the East Village, with artisans selling their wares, dancers in the street, and music from the bistros. For a moment, I overheard a conversation at a café:

“So, what is it you’re saying?”

 “You can’t drink that beer outside.”

 “But I can’t smoke inside?”

 “That’s right.”

It was at that moment I fled from the Village, fearing the Rapture.

New York has become a paradoxical metropolis. Liberal performance artists dance for peace as free-marketers jockey for position on the Stock Exchange. Yet even more strangely, fascist clampdowns on tobacco consumption have taken hold. What’s more, it looks as if Philadelphia, and the rest of Pennsylvania for that matter, will be annexed in a Mayor Michael Bloomberg-prompted non-smoking Anschluss.

Exempting bars, cigar cafes, and certain workplaces, the Philadelphia City Council’s proposed “Prohibited Conduct in Public Places” bill would amend Chapter 10-600 of the Philadelphia City Code to ban smoking in all public places. The State Assembly of Pennsylvania is also considering similar legislation.

Regulating smoking is problematic for two primary reasons: firstly, it would fly in the face of the dominant civil rights and personal choice logic that Americans have enjoyed over the years. Secondly, restrictions of this type would do little more to combat public smoking than line the pockets of political cronies that seem to swoop down upon large cities each time a new restriction is applied.

Pennsylvania’s Liquor Control Board system is a formidable example of the way in which a state government’s restriction on a particular commodity simply provides more jobs for the friends of Harrisburg bureaucracy. Ostensibly, the PLCB was created as a way to control alcohol consumption after the repeal of the ill-fated Prohibition. However, subtract the number of bars that follow age restrictions from the number of establishments that don’t: you should get a negative number. Rather than really controlling alcohol, the PLCB has provided two incentives for Harrisburg to sustain its power: extra revenue for the Commonwealth, with ridiculously high markup on hard liquor sales from state-run liquor stores, as well as a large number of high paying jobs for board members and agents of the bureaucracy. If Pennsylvanian politics retain their regional flavor of corruption, tobacco regulation will operate similarly.

An across-the-board ban of tobacco in dining establishments and bars seems unlikely. Perhaps amid our wailing and teeth gnashing, we will still be permitted one indoor cigarette break at the Philly Diner. However, placing tobacco-licensing restrictions on restaurants, as noncompliant as they may be, will create unnecessary hikes in taxes for the average Pennsylvanian. Regulation of tobacco consumption will, similar to the Commonwealth’s regulation of alcohol, create an unnecessary bureaucracy whose jobs will drive up the price of tobacco and other commodities, as well as provide high-paying jobs for a grinning lot of Harrisburg insiders.

More importantly, perhaps, the proposed restrictions on tobacco consumption follow illogical calls for legislators, those sentinels of public opinion, to enroll in some 100-level reasoning courses. Currently, any restaurant has the right to refuse service or even eject any person who insists on lighting up. Spatial limitations have also been placed on restaurants that do permit smoking. The Pennsylvania Clean Air Act provides that since 75% of the population is non-smokers, the size of smoking sections and non-smoking sections should reflect these proportions. Originally passed in 1988, the Act also exempts establishments that have capacity for small numbers of patrons and those who hold liquor licensure.

Are these restrictions, coupled with the fact that, without state intervention, more restaurants are closing their doors to smokers, somehow insufficient at protecting the public from secondhand smoke? Under the PCAA, no non-smoker would be asked to stay at a bar that permits smoking. Nor would any non-smoker be forced to sit in a restaurant’s smoking section. In recent years, new American laws have begun to reflect a particularly disturbing trend in the culture of this country. Rather than respecting the American right of personal choice, Bloomberg and other city officials have initiated a crusade against smokers. The value of healthy lifestyles has intruded upon the values of personal responsibility and decision-making. In excess, smoke inhalation is indeed injurious to the health of the public. However, legislators need to consider the health of our rights as citizens to choose whether or not to smoke and whether or not to be exposed to secondhand smoke without governmental intervention. Rather than benefiting the health of the people, these regulations, which give rise to local crony-ocracies, injure the health of our rights. Mind your dresses, ladies, we are now moving through the smokeless inferno.