Smoking in public (and even in private) has become a recurring issue about whose “rights” are more important. Every now and then new information comes up and brings the entire problem back to the forefront of public opinion. Well, that’s what is happening in Denver once again. According to this Denver Post article, Lakewood and Jefferson County are revising their anti-smoking regulations. They are hoping that more strict regulations will further decrease smoking and the resulting diseases. The push follows the publication of new research that further demonstrates the harmful effects of smoking and the potential benefits of forced reduction in smoking due to strict regulations. Dr. John Hokanson (my fabulous former epidemiology professor!) and fellow researchers published data from the Greeley heart study that found a 27% reduction in heart attacks after the city enacted smoking restrictions in public places. Hokanson concedes that rates may have already been on the decline, but this reduction was statistically significant. And now for the really interesting finding: There was a 56% reduction in heart attacks in SMOKERS. Rarely does “save them from themselves” legislation have such a pretty result!
As a public health professional, I fully support reduction in smoking. If you are a smoker – QUIT. It will either kill you, make you sick, or at the very least make you stink and make your teeth yellow. I am VERY proud of my friends and family that have quit smoking! I understand that it is a challenge I will never fully grasp.
As a libertarian, I’m torn. By now you probably know my motto: I want you to be able to do whatever stupid or sane thing you want to do, as long as it doesn’t affect me or mine negatively. But smoking is a tough one. It’s not very cut and dry. Someone smoking 15 feet away from the door to my office building may or may not have an effect on my health. Someone smoking next to me at dinner definitely has an effect on the taste of my food and my level of enjoyment of a meal. Someone smoking next to me on a cross-country flight would probably have an effect on my immediate health and my level of politeness. (Can you believe they used to allow smoking on planes!?! Talk about no freedom to remove yourself from the situation.) There are so many possible levels of interaction with smoke. Where do we draw the line without taking away freedoms unnecessarily or giving the government too much say in our day-to-day lives?
I think, especially given the latest data on heart rate reduction, that for the most part we are on the right track. Wow, I think I actually surprised myself with that statement. First, the risks of second-hand smoke are serious, especially to children who are unable to change their situation. I think we should always protect children. Period. We have to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Second, I would prefer to be “protected” from the negative effects of smoke when in situations that I cannot change (e.g. on a plane, entering my work, in line at the post office [you could die of second-hand smoke in the time it takes to complete that scenario], and at school). I’m a little iffy on regulations for private businesses that rely on customer flow for income. I don’t like regulating private businesses. My opinion is that we should let our money speak for us in those situations. If you don’t like a business’ stance on something, don’t patronize it! It would be nice for people to stand united and actually achieve something without government intervention. (A girl can dream, can’t she?) At the same time, I enjoy eating wherever I want without worrying about smoke, and I still find it annoying when I’m trying to enjoy my meal in the fresh air on a patio only to realize my fresh air is full of carcinogens and tar.
If the choice where up to me, I think I would have to err on the public health side of my opinions for once. I would restrict the liberties/freedoms of smokers (not rights, please oh please don’t call smoking a right) for both their health benefit and my health benefit. A significant number of people would not have heart attacks (among many other potential benefits), and the only loss is that an addict cannot fulfill his or her addiction in every location where the compulsion hits them. I think that is a fair and just trade. It would also be beneficial to fund more prevention interventions so our teens don’t start smoking to begin with… but that’s another blog post.
I leave you with my favorite cheesy anti-smoking slogans:
*Be cool – don’t be a smoking fool.
*Cancer cures smoking.
*Don’t be a butthead. Smoking kills.
*I would give up smoking, but I’m not a quitter.
*If we see smoke, we will assume you are on fire and take appropriate action.
*You don’t want to smell my butt, so don’t make me smell yours.
(lol)
burningsugarcane 