Who knows, then, what the form the ban will ultimately take. But its interesting to think about the notions of public health, smoking and individuals rights. For one thing, as much as I detest, loathe, despise, and abhor smoking, its not for me to tell smokers what they can or cannot do. If they want to risk lung cancer and all manner of diseases, thats between them and their HMOs.
Except, of course, that smokers dont wear bubble helmets. When they smoke, so does everyone around them. Therein lies the rub.
Apples and Oranges
Lets look at the situation from an ethical standpoint. Youve probably heard the argument before, but its worth revisiting. When we consider whether a particular action is right or wrong, consent is an important part of the underlying ethical reasoning. Its a bit of a simplification, but when you think that inflicting pain without someones consent is torture (as opposed to BDSM), or that theft is taking property without someones consent, we have a model for smoking. Smokers inflicting second-hand smoke on non-smokers without the latters consent is unethical precisely because there is a lack of consent. To buff up the argument a bit, its also unethical because second-hand smoke has been shown to be harmful (in addition to being utterly vile and disgusting.) The reverse, however, doesnt apply. Non-smokers, through non-smoking, arent imposing anything on smokers that smokers arent already breathing in.
One of the more interesting non-sequiturs thrown at smoking bans and the like takes the following form:
People of this country need to wake up before all of our rights are diminished by these small interest groups and elected officials, wrote one reader on the San Mateo Daily Journal website. You go right ahead and get that deadly smoker, and ignore the biggest killer of all, booze, responded another.
Thats right, booze is worse than smoking, according to some smokers. But under the scenario I described above, its clear that drinking alcohol doesnt involve the same kind of cause-and-effect, action-and-consequent, that smoking has. For one thing, when one person drinks, the act of drinking in itself has no effect on the people around them. (Except, perhaps, for second-hand slurred words that may or may not be amusing.) Alcohol, of course, can impair judgment when taken in large quantities, but people can drink as moderately or generously as they want; they can also arrange their transportation so they dont have to drive. The bottom line is that smoke, by its very nature, gets into the air and zooms in on non-smokers even the ones who are upwind. Drinking alcohol doesnt. The two substances are like apples and oranges to each other.
In terms of individual rights, if we apply the maxim that people should be free to do as they wish provided they cause no harm to anyone else, we end up with this: smoking is only permissible in the company of consenting people. This isnt a problem in private homes; smokers can puff away without much problem. It does, however, get rather hairy in multi-unit complexes.
Enter the Government?
The question is, though, is it really necessary to drag in the government? As that L.A. Times article mentioned, more and more households are smoke-free. The dangers of smoking are more widely known than ever before. Perhaps social pressure is accomplishing the dream of a smoke-free environment. On the other hand, people are notoriously unable to the right thing without Damocles sword hanging above their heads. Those smokers who complain about being persecuted for smoking sometimes forget to what extent it is their actions that are the problem, not those bizarre non-smokers who, for whatever reason, prefer an atmosphere as free of junk as possible. Thats just the way it is. Id much rather people sort this out by talking to each other and devising practical means to allow smokers to smoke without affecting non-smokers (a smoke helmet, Im telling you). But if a draconian ban does come into play, it wont be at the top of my list of things to cry about.
