In Defense Of Smokers
By Ryan Walsh (06/28/04)
The City Councils of Minneapolis and St. Paul are now "considering" imposing a smoking ban on all bars and restaurants.
First Ireland, then New York City, and now the nearby Twin Cities—the totalitarian tentacles of the "public health" movement continue to ensnare countries, cities, and counties across the globe.
Smoking ban advocates argue that employees and customers who are exposed to large amounts of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) experience discomfort and health problems at high rates. The dangers of secondhand smoke have become so obvious to everyone that to question the science behind anti-ETS studies would be to admit allegiance to Marlboro or Camel—in other words, a lackey for Big Tobaccy.
I remember learning about secondhand smoke through the DARE program in elementary school. We fifth graders were taught that every hour spent in a smoke-filled room had the same negative effect as smoking one cigarette. By implication, all of our seemingly sweet 76-year-old grandmas and grandpas were slowly murdering us every time they lit an Old Gold in the house.
There are numerous "studies" and "statistics" that ostensibly correlate ETS and increased cancer or heart failure rates, but the cornerstone of the anti-ETS movement goes back to January 1993, when the EPA estimated that secondhand smoke caused thousands of lung cancer cases annually. Yet upon appeal, a federal judge declared the statistics junk science and accused the EPA of "cherry picking" one-sided data.
Respected medical journals of all sorts agree that the threat of ETS has been hyped. In 1996, the American Heart Association noted no empirical correlation between ETS exposure and coronary heart disease. The World Health Organization refuted any significant connection between childhood exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Furthermore, in May 2003, the British Medical Journal found no verifiable connection between heart disease or lung cancer to any level of ETS exposure at any time.
Granted, secondhand smoke is not good for you. In most cases, ETS aggravates sinuses, sensitive eyes, and respiratory illnesses such as asthma. As for the more malignant sicknesses, journalist Jacob Sullum writes, "Epidemiological research suggests, for example, that living with a smoker for decades may slightly increase your risk of lung cancer, which for a nonsmoker is tiny either way. The increase is so small that it's hard to tell whether the effect is real."
Still, secondhand smoke drives some people crazy. They exclaim, "Let’s get the government to ban smokers from all public places!" Hmm, not a bad idea. Say, I don’t like when people stare in public or chew with their mouths open. Since most people share this sentiment, I suggest we form a coalition aimed at banning these deplorable habits from all public places. Who’s with me?
If there is such a demand for smoke-free bars and restaurants, the free market will provide. Commercial airplanes used to allow in-flight smoking, but eventually the wishes of non-smokers overpowered those of smokers and things changed.
Voluntary exchanges in the marketplace constitute a free society. An employee voluntarily exchanges his labor for compensation, and a customer freely exchanges her capital for goods and services. Nevertheless, as centuries of economic theory demonstrate, the viability of the free market depends absolutely on the security of constitutional property rights.
A smoking ban, a purported win for "public health," is a loss for the Constitution.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ryan Walsh
