Anti-smoking laws have a dark side

It's easy to understand the city's reasons for passing a law against smoking in public places. The primary justification is obvious; nobody should be forced to inhale somebody else's bad habit.

By enacting such a law, Thousand Oaks follows in the footsteps of quite a few cities in California and across the country that have already made it illegal to smoke in public.

Laws against smoking are both politically correct and serve the best interests of public health, but libertarians must be concerned. When the rights of any single group are targeted for forfeiture, freedom of choice diminishes for all of us.

As the right to smoke in public places is taken away, smokers will be confined to their homes, cars and backyards.

Why should anyone care? They're a distinct minority and they have a bad habit. It's not enough that cigarettes have been taxed into oblivion. People still smoke, so maybe tobacco isn't taxed enough. (Wrong!)

Forget the high cost of smoking. To reduce the practice even more, let's make criminals of smokers.

The real problem is and always was, of course, rude smokers. They exhale their toxic clouds near the entrances of public buildings or along pedestrian walkways, and their smoke inevitably wafts into the faces of nonsmokers.

Rude smokers have given all smokers a bad name.

But make no mistake about it: if smoking becomes a crime, other liberties are in peril.

If Americans continue to expect government to protect us from ourselves, freedom itself is at risk.

It might be okay if only smokers lost their rights. But we can't help but wonder: Who's next?