I was recently engaged in a debate on secondhand smoke due to the recent release of a paper by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which indicate that smoking bans could help reduce the incidence of heart attacks by 6-47% in non-smokers. I support smoking bans and I want to share my reasoning.
While it's true that there is some difference between the smoke inhaled by smokers and secondhand smoke that difference is different only in that the smoke inhaled by smokers is typically run through a filter (in the case of cigarettes). Secondhand smoke is a combination of the smoke inhaled by smokers and unfiltered smoke directly from burning tobacco products. (Source). In equal quantities this makes secondhand smoke more dangerous than inhaled smoke run through a filter because secondhand smoke includes non-filtered as well as filtered smoke.
There are 250 chemicals in tobacco smoke known to be harmful, with 50 of them known carcinogens. (Source). Carcinogens typically act either by promoting mutations in genomic DNA resulting in altered cell growth or, by some mechanical mechanism, promoting cell growth. In essence, the cancerous cells become 'cancerous' because they undergo rapid malignant division and growth creating tumors. (Source: Common Knowledge)
Further, many of the harmful compounds in tobacco smoke seriously elevate the risk of other diseases. And, secondhand smoke is known to cause heart disease, typically manifesting as a heart attack, and is known to cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
The effects of secondhand smoke are clear. Secondhand smoke negatively affects the health of everyone exposed to it. But, some people believe that they have the right to smoke anywhere they wish. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will attempt to show this in several, distinct arguments.
1. Group rights trump individual rights. No one would argue that something which is to the benefit of one individual but the detriment of everyone else could be construed to be the right by which the state should abide, i.e. what benefits the group should be held in higher esteem than that which benefits a single individual. If this were not true than anarchy would descend in the legal realm for individuals could act with impunity against the interests of the group.
2. The right to health trumps the right of individual liberty. If this were not true than it would not be possible that freedoms of expression could be curbed by the interests of the state. For example, 'hate speech' could be prosecuted, for otherwise individual liberty would allow expression of that speech.
3. If it were true that individuals should be allowed to smoke in public places, clearly in opposition to the interest of the public health, then individuals should also be allowed to violate the public health in other ways. The wanton spraying of other chemicals hazardous to the public health, against the interest of some individuals, should be allowed because, clearly, if the public health cannot be considered in one case it makes sense that it should not be considered in another case. Therefore, we shouldn't regulate things like air or water quality because, really, individuals should be allowed to dump whatever chemicals they please into those two systems (air & water).
4. The exposure to secondhand smoke is inadvertent. It might be argued that the exposure to other detriments to health is also inadvertent. Such is the case with a virus, e.g. H1N1. Yet, unlike a virus, there is a conscious choice inherent in secondhand smoke. That choice is not made by the person exposed to to secondhand smoke. While the smoker him/herself choses to elevate his/her risk this choice is not made by the person exposed to secondhand smoke. In the case of instances where a conscious choice can be made whether to be exposed to something or not exposed (e.g. certain vaccines which treat conditions not contracted at random) people should be allowed to evaluate the risks versus the benefits themselves before a choice is made for them.
I could probably think of a half dozen other arguments for smoking bans but I think those four are sufficient for now. Suffice it to say, I support smoking bans because of three major reasons: they are in the interest of the public health, exposure to secondhand smoke does not allow the exposee a choice in the matter of exposure to harmful chemicals and the benefits of implementing such a ban (in terms of monetary cost, time spent to treat associated illnesses, and general improvement of average health) outweigh whatever costs such a ban incurs.
Natch Greyes is a Democrat providing commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content
Posts
1 comments:
Natch, your ideas on what you consider obvious reasons behind banning smoking could not be more than an opinion. Your first example is that group rights should trump individual rights. That sounds well and good, but couldn't it be argued that by keeping individual rights in place that the group would be better as a whole to make their own decisions. And who is deciding these group rights. Sure politicians are elected by the people, but if it was a case on deciding whether or not the individual or group will benefit from a given restriction, the vote should be left up to all individuals, or, the group. Second, nothing should trump the right to individual liberty. If your argument is that one's individual liberty would be violated by being called a racial epithet, than banning being able to say that word is trumping individual liberty, still, a flawed argument, which is why hate speech has not made it into hate crimes. It is the government slowly taking away individual rights that has put it under so much pressure. Sure, smoking is bad for you and no one will argue that. However, under federal law it is a legal substance and I have every right to purchase and use it, much as the government has every right to tax me on it, which they do at an astronomical rate. If I want to smoke a cigarette in a park or public college, I should be allowed to, or the State should back down on taxing for the simple reason that if I pay them in order to smoke, shouldn’t I actually be allowed to smoke? In the same article you advocate for freedom of expression, you also argue that the State should be able to regulate personal preferences and actions in favor of the good of the State. Why stop there? Couldn't we ban dressing in offense manners, speaking in offensive language, smelling bad, or just being ugly? I am sure I could find individuals that are against all of that, and would argue they should be banned on the basis of nausea or aesthetics. As for banning smoking in restaurants, smoking bans are unnecessary, as the market will solve the problems. If people do not go to restaurants because of smoking, more restaurants that ban smoking on their own will pop up- that it what the market is built around. For note, I am not a smoker and do find it mildly offensive. However, I am more offended by the government deciding what they think is harmful and arguing that the state should regulate individual liberties based on what they feel is better for the State. Where does it end? Sure spreading anthrax is illegal, it is a deliberate action to harm others. Second hand smoke? Maybe if people were exposed to this over 30 years they will develop lung problems. Flatulence releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, maybe enough farts could burn a hole in the ozone layer, (not likely), but should we ban it? I see your argument and respect it, and on first thought would agree, as I find smoking harmful and offensive. But your communistic ideas of having the state decide what will be in the best interests of the group, and in doing so find it necessary to ban individual liberties, is more offensive.
Post a Comment