Monday, June 27 2011
Written by Barry H. Colvin | lohud.com
OPINION
Recently, the Common Council of my home city of White Plains voted unanimously to ban smoking in open areas such as parks and outside venues. It follows a long and rapidly growing list of municipalities, including New York City, in banning the smoking of tobacco not only indoors, but essentially anywhere where people may congregate. As far as I know, you are still allowed to smoke in your own home, although that liberty may well be on a short rope as well.
I am no fan of smoking. Frankly, I find the habit repulsive, and it is clear at least to me that nicotine is highly addictive — why else would someone continue smoking given the expense of doing so and the obvious harm done to one's body? However, although I am an opponent of smoking, I am not an opponent of the smoker. I have no interest in spending time in an enclosed room with one, but I respect the right of smokers to light up, as long as their smoke does not negatively affect me.
This is where White Plains, as well as many municipal and local governments, disagree. The argument used in proposing and passing laws banning smoking is the danger caused by second-
hand smoke (SHS). Numerous studies have concluded that SHS can be as dangerous, and in some cases more so, to nonsmokers than to the smokers themselves due to unfiltered nicotine. But while the effects of SHS in enclosed areas have been studied and published for years, surprisingly few studies have been done on SHS in open areas. In my research I came across two: the California Air Resources Board study in 2006, and a Stanford University by Neil Klepeis and others in 2007.
The CARB study measured outdoor tobacco-smoke nicotine concentrations outside an airport, college, government center, office complex and amusement parks.
The Klepeis study measured outdoor tobacco-smoke respirable particle concentrations in outdoor patios, on airport and city sidewalks and in parks. It found that mean second-hand smoke particle concentrations can be comparable to SHS indoors.
However, both studies concluded that outdoor conditions are highly variable and correspond to the proximity to and number of the smokers. They also concluded that concentrations were much higher in areas enclosed by fences or walls than in more open areas; and that standing more than two feet away from a single cigarette source dramatically lowered the exposure. In other words, unless you're standing right next to, or hugging, a smoker, the evidence of harm from SHS is tenuous at best.
Since I assume lawmakers are reading the same conclusions I am, what is going on here? Are they truly convinced, despite the lack of evidence, that SHS in open areas is harmful? Or are they instead imposing a lifestyle decision, a value judgment, on their constituents? I'm guessing the latter, given that each of their statements are quickly followed by comments such as "we believe this will act as a further deterrent to smoking" and "this law will further protect our children from the poor example smoking sets."
In reality, lawmakers are increasingly passing laws based on their own personal value judgments, not on whether one's actions cause harm to another. There are numerous other examples of this, but none better than the ban on trans-fats. Are they unhealthy? In excess, you bet. Does my consumption of trans-fats cause harm to my fellow patron? Of course not. What other reasoning could there be for their illegality other than one constituency forcing their value judgments on another?
So why should we care? Since many of us dislike smoking, and truly believe it is quite unhealthy for the smoker, why would we pick up the mantle in their defense? The issue at hand is about more than just nasty habits. It's about our everyday liberties. We have an inalienable right to these liberties, which includes, as distasteful as it may be to some, smoking, or eating trans-fats, or engaging in any activity that affects our lives and our lives alone. Once we determine that lawmakers, often pushed along by special interest groups, can legislate their value judgments on others, there is no limit to their reach. Let's hope none of your "little liberties" become the next trans-fats or second-hand smoke hot button.
* * *
The original article can be found at lohud.com.
