In a comment to my recent post about the imminent passage of the Smoke-Free Illinois Act, local blogger Emtronics asked the following question:
If they were really concerned, then why not ban cigarettes and all tobacco completely?
Em’s not the only one I’ve heard making this argument. The same point has come from many sources, including Emtronic’s usual online nemesis, C.J. Summers.
Sorry guys – I find this argument completely and utterly ridiculous.
Do the people making this argument really think we aren’t going far enough to regulate tobacco use??? I highly doubt it, since most who make this point go on to complain about increasing government interference in our lives. Do the same people really want more interference??? Come on! You can’t have it both ways.
More after the break …
Even though I think that most people making that argument are just doing it to throw up a smokescreen (pardon the pun), I will nonetheless respond to the point.
One – there would be much greater political resistance to an all-out ban on tobacco. Let’s improve public health using measures that are more acceptable to the general public so we can actually get something accomplished instead of spinning our wheels. Two – we have the example of alcohol prohibition. Prohibition was an abject failure that served only to provide massive profits to crime organizations. Do we want to repeat history or learn from it?
Nonetheless, there is a movement to get tobacco products regulated by the F.D.A. This is not an all-out ban, but stringent restrictions would be placed on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Tobacco Free Kids has a good summary of what F.D.A. regulation would involve. I do support the idea F.D.A. regulation of tobacco, but that’s a federal issue that isn’t really in the cards at the moment.
Emtronics also raised concerns regarding the shuttering of some bars and the possibility that other taxes will increase in response to falling tobacco tax revenues. In my opinion that’s a price worth paying for improving public health and removing the restraints on the personal liberties of non-smokers. If bars & restaurants can’t respond to the winds of change (as all good businesses that wish to stay afloat must), then they deserve to get blown out of the water. I won’t shed a tear.
Finally, Em had this to say …
Since the state is going to regulate where smokers smoke, then will the taxpayers be required to offer at state expense patches and gum to help these people kick their drug habit?
Actually, I do think that there should be more funding provided for treatment of addiction in general and tobacco addiction in particular. Addiction treatment is a dreadfully under-funded sector of our healthcare system. I find it appalling and ridiculously self-defeating that many insurance companies refuse to cover smoking cessation aids (nicotine replacement, buproprion, Chantix).
P.S. Randall – I’m really not trying to pick on you. Your comment just provided a good framework to respond to issues I’ve heard raised in many different forums.
16 responses so far ↓
1
Vonster
// May 7, 2007 at 7:52 am
Your strawman king fu is indeed strong.
2
Kate
// May 7, 2007 at 10:01 am
What in the name of jumpin’ Jesus does that mean?
3
Emtronics
// May 7, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Nope, no problem. Pick away. Lord knows I could lose a few pounds.
4
chef Kevin
// May 7, 2007 at 5:22 pm
So, it is OK that all restaurants and bars are smoke free but you can torture your kids lungs in the privacy of your own home or car. Adults have the option to walk into a smoky bar or not. Children “trapped” with smokers in a car or home do not. They outlawed smoking in the wrong places. Seems like priorities are far out of whack.
And no one forced me to start drinking Sam Adams. No one forced anyone to start smoking. yet my tax $ are supposed to help them stop? No, thank you. Put my $$ to roads, fighting crime and betterment of governmental services. If they spent 1000’s supporting their cig habit over the years, they should be able to fund their own patches, gum, etc.
5
knightindragonland
// May 7, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Kevin … the vast majority (over 85%) of smokers started when they were under 18. The tobacco companies know this and continue to target children with their ad campaigns (officially targeting “young adults” – the age group that adolescents adore and emulate) and gimmicks like candy-flavored cigarettes.
Therefore most smokers are already saddled with an addiction by the time they reach the age of consent. Those kids don’t magically get to make their addiction disappear when they turn 18.
Funding addiction treatment is good public health policy. It saves us money in the long run by reducing costs to the Medicare & Medicaid programs. Every individual that quits smoking is an enormous boon because tobacco smoking is the number one cause of preventable death and disability in this country.
Of course I agree that children in the home are the most vulnerable to the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. I see it almost every day in my office:
It’s an ongoing battle to educate the parents, and sometimes I just want to scream “can you smell yourself?!” Too many times I walk into an exam room and start choking from the overpowering stench of too many cigarettes smoked in an enclosed space exuding from the clothing of the adults in the room.
However – telling people what to do in public places is one thing. Telling them what to do in their own homes is quite different.
Again, I think this line of argument is a smokescreen. If you think that we’re trampling on property rights and free choice too much by regulating public smoking, are you really advocating that we charge into people’s homes instead? Reeeeeally? I don’t think so.
I think those that make these arguments want anti-smoking advocates to bite off more than they can chew and go for the stricter regulations, knowing that they’ll fail and instead nothing will happen.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
6
chef Kevin
// May 7, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Heck no, I’m against charging into people’s homes, but Pandora’s smoking box has been opened. My sisters, cousins and I all managed to go through childhood without a car seat. I managed to drive the first 15 years of my life without a seat belt. And now what do we have? Car seats and seatbelts. The same people that got smoking bans in restaurants and bars are going to look for a new crusade against smokers….think not being able to smoke in your car with children present isn’t too far off? And I have to have radon detectors in my house….
7
Michelle
// May 8, 2007 at 8:59 am
HB1769 would ban smoking in a car with a child 8 or younger. I haven’t taken time to look up the bill and see if it’s progressing or just languishing in committee. I would sure like to see it passed. Adults who want to smoke should indulge themselves away from children. Decent parents already do this. So the bill would only affect bad parents who refuse to do the right thing unless forced.
8
Chad
// May 8, 2007 at 9:31 am
HB1769 did not pass the house
it lost 18-91 on march 29, 2007
9
chef Kevin
// May 9, 2007 at 12:03 am
Knight –
As a Peds doc, this HB 1769 that failed probably has to make you more heart broken than most. While I didn’t have a lot of sympathy for those non smokers who willing subjected themselves to secondhand smoke by going into “smoking allowed” places, kids do not have that option. They are forced into a smoke filled “arena”. Kinda wonder what kind of lawmakers we have that ban smoking in places where people can come and go at will if they don’t like smoke, but turn around and vote down a bill that holds a child’s lungs hostage. Seems almost hypocritical. I know I seem like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth wanting more gov’t. involvement, but not really as I was never for the Peoria smoking ban. If “big brother” was going to impose a ban, one would think they should be more protective against helpless kids than those who could leave on their own free will.
Your thoughts?
10
justanobserver
// May 9, 2007 at 10:59 am
The legislation concludes that a “private club” is a “public space.” Wonder if that new definition will make into Webster’s.
The legislation does ban smoking in private residence used for child care and foster care.
11
chef Kevin
// May 9, 2007 at 11:32 am
So, that means I can now go to the Country Club of Peoria anytime I want? SWEET!! Riiiight. I’ll get tossed off the cliff, roll across Galena Road and get run over by the Spirit of Peoria.
12
justanobserver
// May 9, 2007 at 11:46 am
As Mark Twain said, “It’s a good thing we don’t get all the government we pay for.”
13
knightindragonland
// May 9, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I am disappointed that HB 1769 did not pass, but I’m not surprised. The Smoke-Free Illinois Act covers public places – even if they do stretch the definition of “public” a bit.
The argument I’ve heard regarding private clubs is that they sometimes employ non-members as workers, thus the law should apply to protect their health.
I suppose they’re applying the law more broadly to private clubs because that designation could be abused to evade the law. Bars could sell “memberships” at the door in place of a cover charge and call themselves a private club.
It’s a more difficult sell to convince legislators to restrict tobacco use on private property (as evidenced by the overwhelming failure of HB 1769), even if innocents are exposed. The miserable failure of the “War on Drugs” shows that such measures are not effectively enforceable at any rate. The key to decreasing use in the home is increasing education and smoking cessation treatment.
14
justanobserver
// May 12, 2007 at 3:52 pm
A group of cigar smokers in New Jersey got around their law by creating a not-for-profit club with no employees. They sell nothing except snacks from a vending machine. Alcohol is BYO. They all invested to buy the building and remodel it, and they all pay monthly dues to use it. They do their own cleaning, etc. Once a month they have a catered dinner. But even that model won’t fly in Illinois because of the private club is a public space designation. TIn New Jersey there are no employees and no one in the place who could be considred the public. You just wonder if such a club were to be started in Illinois, say to play chess or read books,and cigars were smoked in the meantime, would the smoke police complain and get it shut down?
15
C. J. Summers
// May 15, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I think you’ve misunderstood my argument completely, Knight. My point has always been and remains that you shouldn’t trample private property rights as a means to the end of outlawing smoking. It is a slippery slope that will lead to less desirable government intrusion in the future. If you want to outlaw smoking, then outlaw smoking. Don’t make the bar owners and restaurateurs into criminals for allowing people to smoke on their private property where everyone has the choice to stay or go as they please.
What else is going to get legislated under the banner of “public health”? You can bet that once you start expanding that definition, it won’t stop where you think it will. If you don’t believe that, you have waaay too much trust in government.
16
justanobserver
// May 16, 2007 at 9:56 am
CJ: The campaign was wage primarily on protecting workers. How many times did we see the ad about not trading your health for a paycheck,which frankly is an excellent slogan and a very effective one. While I believe the end goal is to outlaw or eliminate smoking all together, it was clever to use the workers as the focus. Hence Dragon’s reference to including private clubs as public spaces because they might employ non-members. I agree totally about trampling private rights, including the right to work where you want under the conditions that are known to you at time of employment.
Leave a Comment