OPINION & EDITORIAL
Clear the Air Already
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by :
- Blair's approval rating up since war (April 16, 2003)
- Support our troops: protest (April 16, 2003)
- Anti-semitism by another name (April 24, 2003)
- Santorum deserves relief (April 29, 2003)
- All the fits that are news to print (June 3, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Charity bracelets alone not enough (March 14, 2005)
- Edwards' questionable call (March 28, 2007)
- Iraq war only about oil -- For France and Germany (February 13, 2003)
- Restaurant smoking ban would protect public health (September 30, 2002)
- Irrelavent stories add little to news coverage (November 10, 2005)
Monday, November 18, 2002
A couple years back, Europe was gripped by panic over reports that NATO had used depleted uranium munitions in its campaign in Yugoslavia. The front-page newspaper stories were grim.
The number of people exposed could be in the thousands. Thousands.
The health effects could include cancer. Cancer.
The fears eventually subsided. But during the height of this controversy, NATO held a press conference at its headquarters in Brussels. Officials explained depleted uranium’s utility in piercing tank armor, and they stressed that the radiological and toxicological effects of depleted uranium truly were minimal.
As they spoke, there was a loud off-camera cough every few seconds. The source became clear when an American environmental-health expert was introduced.
“I apologize for my coughing,” he began. “I have never been in such a smoky room.”
The disdain in his voice was evident. He knew the reporters would set down their cigarettes just long enough to submit sensationalist copy proclaiming a depleted-uranium health crisis.
He knew these stories would make tomorrow’s front pages. No doubt he also knew these newspapers would neglect to mention that, on the same day, 11,000 people worldwide would die from cigarette smoke.
Some would die after long and painful battles with emphysema. Some would die from heart attacks or brain hemorrhages or cervical cancer. Some would die as infants, from smoke-induced SIDS.
Some would die who had never taken a puff on a cigarette.
In the United States, secondhand smoke kills nearly 50,000 nonsmokers every year. Fewer Americans die on the roads. Secondhand smoke is the leading preventable cause of death in this country ? after only smoking itself.
This is a crisis.
In years past, smoking apologists would deny this crisis as they sought to stymie public health initiatives. Now, however, the overwhelming evidence of secondhand smoke’s insidious effects is much easier to simply ignore than to deny. Even Philip Morris acknowledges that, for example, ventilation has “not [been] shown to reduce the health effects of secondhand smoke.”
Yet opponents of smoking restrictions are still in denial: They seek to deny the public’s right to determine public policy. Bars are private businesses, the line goes, and the public should butt out.
But if smoking apologists are waxing nostalgic for the kind of free enterprise epitomized by the lawless taverns of the Wild West, they lost a century ago. Bars and taverns are regulated. They require permits and licenses. They are subject to health inspections. They must comply with OSHA regulations. Their employees and customers have rights.
In fact, smokers and nonsmokers enjoy exactly the same rights. Talk of so-called “smokers’ rights” should be most insulting to smokers themselves.
After all, the contention that smoking restrictions are discriminatory depends on the claim that smokers are defined not by their actions but by their addiction. If a tavern-smoking ban excludes smokers, then smokers are also excluded from theaters, airplanes and classes at this university.
Yet individuals who smoke watch movies, fly and attend the UW. This perplexing contradiction can be explained by the realization that “people who smoke” is simply not interchangeable with “people who are smoking.”
Smoking restrictions do not ban people. Rather, they ban an activity that fundamentally infringes on the rights of others. As tobaccoscam.org notes, “a brawler’s right to swing a punch ends precisely where your nose begins.”
Smokers are not special, and neither are bars. For this reason, the “compromises” being floated ahead of tomorrow’s Common Council meeting are particularly disturbing. While states from California to Florida to Delaware have already moved to restrict smoking in all restaurants and taverns, Madison may move in precisely the opposite direction. Under one plan, the Common Council would promise to keep tavern air toxic until 2005.
In the face of the inevitable, delay is the preferred tactic of smoking apologists. And given the smoking crisis this nation faces, it is tragic. Tavern patrons and employees should not be forced to imperil their health. Fifty-thousand Americans should not die each year simply because someone else chooses to smoke.
Today’s opponents of a tavern-smoking ban were yesterday’s opponents of the airline-smoking ban. Of the restaurant-smoking ban. Of the daycare-smoking ban.
Should the smoking apologists succeed in defeating or diminishing Madison’s current public health initiative, public health will suffer. But the real tragedy won’t be reflected on the front page. It will be in the obituaries.
Bryant Walker Smith (bsmith@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering.
