Why Ban Smoking in Public Places?: Arguments in Favor
Why Ban Smoking in Public Places: Negative Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke
Whereas the effects of other self-indulgent, personally harmful behaviors are more singularly linked to the participant, the injurious effects of smoking in public spill over into other people’s lives with a more consistent, tangible, and (sometimes) permanent impact. To underscore this argument, let’s contrast smoking with something else: poor dietary choices.
Smoking in public is different from, say, eating greasy fast food for every meal. Both are understood as significantly harmful to the consumer – but in the latter case, the negative impact on other people is indirect. Maybe the poor eater will die earlier, leaving their family members in a tough position. Maybe their habit will result in more time away from work due to illness. Or maybe it just contributes to the arguably negative fast food stronghold on America. While some links are present between the poor eating behavior and consequences for other people, those links are weaker – less immediate – less measurable – and ultimately more debatable when we’re talking about a lousy diet.
The same cannot be said for smoking. Secondhand smoke exposure is clearly linked with negative outcomes on one’s health. While the exact degree of the harm is still debated, it’s increasingly harder to make a case that second-hand smoke causes no significant injury to the breather – especially over longer periods of time. From cancer to heart disease, the scientific evidence has mounted for decades now. Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that even short-term secondhand smoke has a palpable effect on many of its breathers. While just temporary exposure to smoke may cause less permanent harm, symptoms like headaches, breathing difficulties, and even nausea are well-documented and common. The evidence is quite solid that inhaling smoke has numerous long-term and short-term consequences for bystanders who, for the most part, are “innocent.”
Why Ban Smoking in Public Places: The Lingering Odor Effect
While it falls more into the annoyance category than the tangible harm category, one can also make an argument about the odor of smoke. Especially in restaurants or bars that allow smoking, many patrons find the presence of smoke annoying. That, on its own is not a tenable argument for an all-out public smoking ban. However, the fact that cigarette smoke tends to linger in one’s clothing and hair means that smoke is different from, say, excessively loud talking or someone’s unpleasant body odor. While annoying to most folks, the displeasure with these other things tends to fade quickly once the offending person’s behavior is successfully left behind. However, in the case of cigarette smoke odor, the undesirable, palpable effects linger for some time after one has left the immediate area of the smoke. A jacket worn to a smoky bar for 30 minutes may still smell like smoke three days later, but a jacket worn next to a smelly hobo for an equally long bus ride isn’t likely to endure such a smelly fate.
Why Ban Smoking in Public Places: Litter Reduction
No one can deny that cigarette butts account for millions of pieces of litter annually. In every city and in every state, smoking away from one’s home and car accounts for a significant amount of litter that detracts from a location’s aesthetic. Smoker’s could choose to dispose of their waste properly, but when they’re outside, it would appear that most of them don’t. Consider an attractive building whose immediate landscaping is littered with butts – or a tree-lined city street whose planters are marred with stubby cigarette ends. A ban on public smoking would likely reduce litter. While not a primary argument in favor of a public smoking ban, I think it’s a still viable one.
Why Ban Smoking in Public Places: Smoking in Workplaces
Specifically, I’m discussing the many bars and restaurants that allow smoking. I will concede that some workers in these environments happily choose to be around the smoke – and many others are apathetic or tolerant of it. But more than a handful of bar and restaurant employees would, primarily for health reasons, prefer not to work around smoke. Still, they persist because they need the job.
A smoking ban opponent might simply say “work somewhere without smoke,” but I would pose in reply: “What’s more important – your insistence on smoking in public or that employee’s livelihood and health?” It’s much harder for someone to get a different job than it is for a smoker to refrain from smoking at a restaurant or bar. Smokers’ inability (or unwillingness) to control their urges for several hours should not force people to switch jobs in the name of personal welfare. Furthermore, the best (or only) jobs that some people can get are service sector positions in restaurants with smoking sections or in bars that allow smoke. In some cases, the choice may even be between unemployment and self-support.
And moving to a larger scale public health argument: so long as places of public accommodation allow smoking, a significant number of employees (regardless of their degree of acquiescence) will be exposed to secondhand smoke for long periods of time – tens of hours a week. Given the hard-to-repudiate long-term effects of secondhand smoke briefly discussed above, the continued presence of public smoking in restaurants and bars endangers public health, especially via the staff at affected establishments. Arguments by extension can then be made about cost, but I will not explore those here.
Arguments in favor of public smoking bans: Final thoughts
Above are just some of the more compelling arguments for ordinances banning smoking in public. Even if you agree with the basic concept, the devil is always in the details, as what constitutes “public” is up for debate (and beyond the purview of this article). I must add that, despite my vehement arguments for public smoking bans, I do support a person’s right to smoke in private settings where the impact on other people is limited and controlled. I do not advocate the eradication of cigarettes any more than I advocate prohibition of alcohol, but along with the use of a substances comes the duty to respect (at least) other people’s health.
