Effective May 5, smoking will become illegal in all Boston workplaces. Denise Spellman’s recent column introduces several important points (“All lit up over ban on smoking in Boston bars,” Jan. 29, pg. 7). As Ms. Spellman reveals, Boston “is insisting [it] knows what is better for its citizens than its citizens themselves do.” The edict demonstrates how liberal politicking has succeeded yet again in the abrogation of individual rights. The issue we face is not the danger of smoking but the danger of losing our individual rights.

I am a non-smoker. However, I have often ventured into clubs and restaurants with full knowledge that their clientele might include smokers. I do not enjoy inhaling clouds of cigarette smoke. Nonetheless, my desire to dance or eat manifests itself in my conscious decision to purchase a service that also includes smoking. Since I do not own the business, I have no right to expect it to modify its smoking services on my behalf. If this grieves me enough, I can choose to go to another establishment that offers a smoke-free atmosphere. The Public Health Commission’s premise is that workers deserve clean air. However, a worker who wants clean air can seek employment in places that forbid smoking. If a business is unable to hire employees or sell its service due to its smoking policies, it will likely revise those policies to remain operating.

Perhaps the most unrecognized advantage of living in a democracy is that we are entitled to make our own choices in regard to where we work and which services we consume. Entrepreneurs, not Boston, have the inherent right to determine their business’s nature and the clientele they wish to serve. For example, Pravda 116, a Boylston Street bar, chooses to serve the upscale, and for this reason employs bouncers to refuse entrance to non-yuppies. The Oak Room, a luxurious Copley Square restaurant, requires a jacket and tie as admittance requirements. Ramrod/Machine, a gay bar down the street from Pravda, abides by its slogan “No Gear, No Beer” and will not serve those lacking bondage paraphernalia (source: Fodor’s City Guide Boston — not personal experience). The owners of these businesses establish rules to define the clientele they wish to serve, even though they vastly minimize it with their restrictions. Thus, if you prefer leather straps to leather jackets, choose Ramrod/Machine over Pravda. If you prefer not to wear a jacket and tie to dinner, eat at McDonalds instead of the Oak Room. If you prefer a smoke-free environment, locate a bar or restaurant that prohibits smoking.

It is the widespread creed of the Democratic Party that Americans are irresponsible and incapable of making good choices. Whether a person needs to smoke is not a matter for government consideration. My decision to not smoke is a personal one, and I therefore gratefully acknowledge and willingly accept that I live in a country where people have the right to decide for themselves. The tyranny of the liberal government in Massachusetts has superseded morality and human rights. One’s personal welfare his ability to pursue his own happiness depends on his ability to make decisions. The “invisible hand” of the marketplace, (that is, the collective decision-making process of consumers and producers) justly regulates based on the laws of supply and demand. The Boston government, on the contrary, assumes that you, the consumer, are irresponsible and unable to decide what is right for your life, so it decides for you. It regulates based on laws of distortion, depravity and despotism on the complete denial of individual liberties. Come May 5, our rights vanish like smoke in the wind.