Smoking Issue Already Decided
Sara Adams
Undergraduate/Political Science
It’s a little late in the game to argue against public smoking bans. While I’m glad Student Senate didn’t pass a campus wide smoking ban, such a hands off attitude toward individual choice is on the losing side of history. As Andy notes in his article, Governor Doyle signed a state wide ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, and workplaces last May. Further, anti-smoking zealots are making many other mind boggling inroads under the pretense of public safety. Slate’s William Saletan has obsessively chronicled the trend in his column, Human Nature. He notes that in New York City there are also plans to ban smoking in public parks and beaches, and if it happens New York City won’t be the first. Park and beach smoking bans already exist in a few cities and counties across the country. There’s also a city in California that bans smoking in apartments with shared ceilings. Eventually, the only place left for people to smoke will be in a hole dug in the ground surrounded by orange cones and blinking lights. We might need to bring in some police protection as well.
So score a couple of irreversible points solidifying a role for people who know what’s best for you. It turns out the conservative fear of a Nanny State isn’t a baseless stereotype. I don’t smoke (anything), I’d just rather not watch this health fixation seep so far into public policy. Many of the latest anti-smoking fixations run far beyond rhyme or reason. While secondhand smoke causes real health problems, exposure to outdoor smoking poses substantially less risk, (in fact, almost no risk, if you’re seven feet or more away from the smoker), making the forays into campus and park bans far more about aesthetics and personal preference than health.
The element of intolerance is hard to miss. Speak with anyone opposed to smoking, and after going through their standard health risks spiel you’ll hear a complaint about having to walk past smokers on their way somewhere, be it to class or wherever. “I shouldn’t have to walk through that,” he or she will say. Just as the New York City health commissioner has said that people shouldn’t have to look at people smoking. So it’s less about health than having to look at or walk past something we don’t like.
Given that the state wide smoking bans on workplaces and restaurants aren’t going to go away, that’s the place where the line should be drawn. Increasing regulations, on campus or in parks, is just a reflection of what John Stuart Mill called, “The feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathizes would like them to act.”
If you’ve ever watched Sex and The City the main character Carrie, a smoker, had a relationship with Aidan, who was anti-smoking. Their relationship illustrates all the pitfalls of smoking-bans. Soon after they meet, Aidan announces that he can’t be with a smoker, it bothers him too much, poor soul. So Carrie tries to quit for him, but of course she can’t. So he ends up chastising her every time he catches her, acting all sad and judgmental. Even though her smoking doesn’t affect Aidan, (since she never smokes in his presence) it torments him! No wonder she ended up cheating on that asshole.
And so it often goes when we try and make people do “what’s best for them.” While there might be some who happily “learn their lesson” a lot of other people aren’t wired that way.
It’s also strange that banning cigarettes is becoming more acceptable as more people support the legalization of marijuana. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana has more carcinogens then cigarettes. The Institute’s website says, “In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke.”
This reveals the way that distaste rather than substance is shaping the smoking debate. Otherwise we would expect the anti-smoking crowd to come down on pot as well, if it’s the carcinogens they really want to save us from. But that’s not what this is about.
This willingness to remold the public into whatever the majority would prefer isn’t disappearing anytime soon, and its impact can be felt everywhere. What other impulse was behind the inclusion of the Stupak Amendment in the House’s healthcare bill?
The human tendency to ignore this dates back to the beginning of time, but we do better to keep it in check. However, I’m not holding out a whole lot of hope for any newfound restraint on the part of public officials, when future opportunities for regulation, smoking or otherwise, arise.