Musings from a cigarette-smoking libertarian

Debate is brewing over a potential ban on public smoking on Columbia’s Morningside campus, judging from the public response to recent preliminary action taken by multiple entities at the University. Groups like Students for Sensible Drug Policy are planning hookah rallies as signs of visible opposition to the proposal. Smokers and non-smokers alike are chafing at what is perceived as an Orwellian hamper on individual personal behavior. Hence, a fundamental question emerges: Does Columbia University have a right to restrict “public” smoking on its campus?
Some have argued that this ban is a violation of a student’s personal right, and as such, Columbia does not have a right to restrict public smoking. As a libertarian, I see any coercive incursion onto individuals as aggression, regardless whether it comes from state or thug. However, the proposed smoking ban is problematic because it does not take place in society, but rather in a subset of society—the Columbia Bubble. In matters such as these, libertarianism emerges not only as a political ideology, but also as an ethical philosophy with practical application. Ludwig von Mises’ treatise on liberalism starts with private property as the basis for a classic liberal society: “…the program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production…” In other words, property rights are at the crux of libertarianism, and the axiom from which all other rights are derived, such as life, liberty and the right to seek happiness.
Columbia is a private institution like any other private entity in society. Just as individuals have a property right to their body, so does Columbia have a property right to its campus. A smoking ban, then, is an entirely legitimate course of action to take because Columbia is acting as a private institution and as such, it has dominion over its own property to do what it sees fit. Columbia University is the owner of the property, and we the students live on it as paying guests who have signed contracts to adhere to the standards placed onto us. In the same way that we have to sign in our guests into residence halls or recognize that the Department of Public Safety as the authority on campus, so will smokers have to respect Columbia’s a potential new ban. From a libertarian perspective, private property trumps all other “rights,” and a private institution does indeed have a legitimate right to manage its property as it deems appropriate.
Some contend that libertarian ethics are no way to derive a solution to this problem. However, subjecting this dilemma to an economic analysis will show that it actually falls right in line with libertarian ethics, and would in fact act as a fantastic example of a microcosmic property dispute being resolved because of adherence to private property. The scenario: a pack of smokers enjoying their afternoon nicotine-filled death sticks on Low Plaza, seemingly isolated from the non-smokers, would not be an authentic picture of reality. Public smoking produces a gaseous waste that is inhaled by non-smokers in the immediate area. Science has shown us the hazardous and adverse effects that second-hand fumes have on a human being. This is clearly a form of passive aggression in the sense that smoke fumes are producing an adverse cost that is being passed on inadvertently as a result of the smokers and non-smokers being located close together in a “public” area, such as Low Plaza.
This means that these locales are non-excludable but rivalrous goods, because no student can deny another access, and yet space is limited. This is a common result of public property in society, where common property resources are misused because there is no rational form of economic calculation and no private owner to manage it. We see examples in fisheries and forests, where no property rights exist. People have no economic incentive to abstain from hunting to the point where the quantity of animals is exhausted. Economists call this the “Tragedy of the Commons.” We see externalities produced from toxic dumping in rivers, which later provides unhealthy drinking water to people. However, on the Morningside campus, there is a property owner. If smoking were limited to zones, this would eliminate the externality offset from second-hand smoking. Non-smokers would stay clear of smoking zones, and smokers would be free to enjoy their cigarettes and feel morally at peace to know that the excesses of their cigarettes are only harming their own health and not that of bystanders. It isn’t even a prohibition, but rather, a zoning. For a libertarian ethicist coming from an economic perspective, this is a viable proposal that does not restrict anyone’s natural rights, but in fact, promotes a microscopic image of the ideal classical liberal society.