In our area of Kentucky we have a legacy of independence, and we fiercely protect our rights. We also have a legacy of tobacco, both as a cash crop and as a product. It is not surprising that we are resistant to smoke-free laws. Let’s face it, tobacco is a legal product, and individuals have a right to use it. We hear no one challenging that.
If everyone did the “right thing”, smoking bans would not be necessary; neither would traffic laws, policemen, or taxes for that matter. We could all be libertarian, happy and secure. Clearly, the problem with secondhand-smoke bans comes because of the collision of the rights of business owners and the rights of others. The factor that has brought us to this confrontation is the recent conclusion about secondhand smoke and health. Specifically, in 2006, the US Surgeon General published a comprehensive report on the effects of secondhand smoke. The results are disturbing: secondhand smoke is a very serious health problem and there is no known safe level of exposure. This has made it necessary that communities reconsider their handling of secondhand-smoke exposure. Hence, “rights” and public health are the issues.
The recommendation and the goal of the Surgeon General (and the Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine) are to see indoor smoking eliminated. Indoor smoking in workplaces and public places exposes non-smokers to the harmful effects of another’s action. We would maintain that our right, all of us, is to have healthy air to breathe. For children and those with heart disease, it is even more dangerous. The person with heart or lung disease should be concerned about the air they breathe wherever they are. We know changes occur with smoke exposure which can cause serious immediate harm to them. (A woman recently died as a direct result of secondhand smoke exposure: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23075001 ). Actually, even smokers put themselves more at risk when they smoke in an enclosed place, or are exposed to secondhand smoke of others.
We would be exceedingly ignorant or stubborn if we ignored the known health risks of secondhand smoke exposure. We make other protections, superseding rights, when public health is at stake. What we must do, what almost all major cities, 22 states, and other counties have done, is to eliminate smoking in workplaces. It is the only way known to remove the health risk. It is fair to all because smokers can continue to smoke (outdoors or in private) and everyone is protected from unwanted or unsuspected exposure.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 at 3:29 pm and is filed under Resource.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.