Smoking Laws in Seattle Parks: It Starts With Smoking, But Where Does it End?

In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas found that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance” and that create “zones of privacy.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 484 (1965).    

Of course there is a general spirit of privacy and liberty in the Bill of Rights.  And I think we can correctly surmise that the framers did not feel it necessary to enumerate every possible scenario they wanted to cover with the Bill of Rights.  Therefore, it is right to act and legislate in a general spirit of liberty, a value which is also celebrated in other founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence itself, proclaiming the inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

In general in the United States we celebrate the best of our way of life when we restrict one another as little as possible. 

Recently, at least one non-elected official in Seattle has moved clearly against that principle.  Seattle Parks Superintendent Timothy Gallagher apparently -- and I did not know this -- reigns over our parks with a god-like authority little known in modern Western government.  He recently over-ruled the Board of Park Commissioners (which had recommended smoking sections in parks) and unilaterally imposed a total ban on smoking in parks because of health reasons and because it “set a bad example for children.”

I don’t think I have to point out that this, if we let it stand, is just the beginning.  Is there anything you do that Timothy Gallagher might think is a bad example for children?  What if there are fat people in the park?  What if people in the park are eating transfats?  What if people in the park look like they didn’t shower today?  What if people are skipping in the park?  

With the attempt to federalize healthcare we should anticipate rules and legislation on a national level outlawing more and more personal acts that may arguably in some sense impose costs on society at large.  Should you pay a tax if you consume more than 2,000 calories per day or if you do not exercise in a given week?  Should you require a relationship license if you have a tendency to enter into destructive relationships that leave both people needing psychiatric therapy?  We will get all this and more unless we resolutely defend a zone of privacy, and unless we subject restrictions on personal behavior to a very exacting degree of scrutiny. 

Gallagher’s autonomy is disconcerting.  I would go so far as to say that his attitude toward governance makes him a dangerous person to have in public office.  His policy is ill-considered and is characteristic of a dangerous trend among Democratic politicians to achieve a gloriously perfect world by making decisions for people.  This type of law-making is un-American and dangerous and we should make sure it stays un-American. 

The American tradition respects individual privacy and freedoms.  Let’s keep the freedoms and throw out the Liberal nanny state politicians.