According to The Tennessean, “Less than a month from now, on October 1, smoking will be banned in all public places in the state, including restaurants, hotels, sports arenas and other workplaces. There are a few exceptions. But this will be the biggest public safety change in the Volunteer State since the advent of child seats and mandatory vaccines.”
Like child seats and mandatory vaccines, the controversy over smoking in public places is primary an issue of public health. The concern for public health far outweighs the concerns about individual rights because of the huge dangers associated with secondhand smoke exposure. According to the American Lung Association (ALA), secondhand smoke causes around 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and 46,000 deaths from heart disease annually in the United States. It is particularly dangerous for children, who have no choice about their surroundings and no protection against the harmful behaviors of others. The ALA reports “an estimated 22 million children aged 3-11 and 18 million youth aged 12-19 were exposed to secondhand smoke in the U.S. in 2000.” Because of this, 150,000 to 300,000 cases of “acute lower respiratory tract infections (pneumonia and bronchitis)” in children are directly attributable to secondhand smoking. The risk for children exposed to secondhand smoke is substantial, and no child deserves to grow up with persistent lung problems because of someone else’s habit.
Secondhand smoke is also dangerous for adults; the Surgeon General’s Report, according to the ALA, “concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.” Making harmful choices of your own that lead to a heart attack is one thing, but developing a greater risk of heart problems because of someone else’s choice to smoke is entirely another. No one deserves to suffer such devastating consequences from someone else’s choice. It is perfectly reasonable to think that lowering exposure to secondhand smoke will have positive consequences for the rate of heart disease in Tennessee in the long run. Tennessee’s smoking ban is a positive step because it allows for better health in a population that desperately needs it.
Smoking finds defenders in a vocal minority of people who insist that they have the right to endanger the health of those around them. According to www.statehealthfacts.org, 26.7% of Tennessee adults smoke, but 51.4% of those adults had tried to quit within the past year - hardly a convincing advertisement for smoking. The majority of Tennesseans do not smoke and should not have to involuntarily sacrifice their rights to the vocal minority of smokers and tobacco farmers. By denying smokers the right to smoke in certain areas, lawmakers are providing for the rights of nonsmoking citizens, who deserve to breathe clean air. This is not a significant infringement on the rights of smokers, as the law does not keep people from smoking everywhere, just certain public places. This law helps the majority of people by placing a small restriction on a small subset of the population.
Some insist that tobacco is crucial to Tennessee’s economy, but this argument is outdated and supports big tobacco companies rather than ordinary Tennesseans. According to The New York Times, “after a 2005 federal tobacco buyout compensated growers who backed out of the industry, farmers last year harvested 49 million pounds, worth $93 million,” which is a vast drop from 1982, when farmers harvested 178 million pounds – nearly $307 million. Even Tennessee farmers are leaving the industry, which means that a majority of its support is now coming from huge, powerful tobacco companies. Support for the tobacco industry is essentially support for large tobacco companies, not small farmers, which makes the economic argument against the smoking ban considerably less palatable. Even if tobacco were economically important, however, the economic advantages of the crop would not justify the increase in health care spending and litigation caused by the consequences of smoking and secondhand smoke. The mere fact that tobacco has historically been grown in Tennessee does not mean that we should encourage its use, especially if it leads to neutral economic and negative health outcomes.
Many Vanderbilt students were studying in London, England this summer when the ban on smoking in public places went into effect on July 1. Many Londoners predicted that it would kill nightlife and ruin the ambience of pubs, bars, and restaurants. On the contrary, it made it possible to spend a night out without returning home smelling like a cigarette - a surprising and positive change. Returning home with my hair still smelling like shampoo was a pleasant experience, one which I know Tennesseans will appreciate as well.
Comments