POSITION

The time has come for us to stop forcing people to inhale tobacco smoke.

A LITTLE HISTORY

There was a time when many people chewed tobacco, and it was customary to expectorate outdoors on sidewalks or indoors in spittoons. But over time, it was discovered that spitting in public, indoors or out, could spread tuberculosis and other diseases to innocent persons, so gradually it became less popular-and ultimately illegal-to spit where other people would be exposed to the spittle.

Until a few decades ago, people could smoke in almost all locations-restaurants, bars, hotel lobbies, department stores, grocery stores, airplanes, movie theaters, office buildings, doctor's offices, hospitals, and so forth-and those who didn't smoke had to inhale and endure it. Then, after enough complaint, interior locations were divided into "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections, in a feeble attempt to placate the non-smokers; but, alas, it was discovered that smoke could not read and would not obey the "section" signs, and so the involuntarily inhalers revolted at this, too.

NOWADAYS

As of August 2006 in southern California, we have finally reached the point where smokers are no longer allowed to smoke inside most locations. However, we continue to find them smoking in populated areas on the outside of buildings and other public sites. Invariably, smokers can be found releasing their fumes in the exterior seating areas of restaurants and bars, in the exterior areas of hotels, theaters, sports stadiums, and near the entrance ways to most public buildings.

In theory, this should satisfy everyone: The smokers can do as they wish, and, presumably, the non-smokers should not have to inhale the smoke. The problem is that, even outside, smoke does not just go up. It travels any which way, or if there's a breeze, the way the breeze blows; and unfortunately, when people smoke outdoors, they are often positioned in an upwind position, forcing everyone downstream to inhale their vapors. (The country of Chile-yes, Chile!-understood this when they passed a law that took effect August 14, 2006, preventing people from smoking in numerous places, including outdoor sports stadiums. "CNN.com/Chile Anti-smoking")

Moreover, when an exterior door to a building is opened, it usually creates a tunnel-effect that draws the air from the outside of the building, inside. And when people are standing or sitting near that door smoking cigarettes, the smoke is brought into the building with that air, again forcing innocent people to involuntarily inhale the injurious fumes.

With a gun, injury is not caused where the trigger is pulled, but where the bullet lands; likewise, it is not where the smoker lights up or exhales that matters, but where the smoke meets other people in its travels.

A FEW NUMBERS

Smoke does not just create an annoyance; it is now known and accepted throughout the United States (except by people who make money selling tobacco products) that inhaling smoke-whether voluntarily or involuntarily-causes cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other physical diseases and injuries.

In his report of June 27, 2006, the Surgeon General said, among other things, "...Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer." ("Surgeongeneral.gov/second hand smoke") According to the American Lung Association, in its website "lungusa.org" (March, 2006), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as "a known cause of cancer in humans." The site says the EPA has reported that secondhand smoke causes some 3,000 deaths by lung cancer and as many as 62,000 deaths by heart disease to non-smoking adults in the United States each year. (It took ten years to kill even fewer Americans in the Vietnam War. Emphasis mine)

And according to "medicalnewstoday.com", as of 2002, only 22.5% of the adults in the United States were current smokers. That means that 77.5% of us are unwillingly harmed by them at some time or another.

ENJOYMENT VS HARM

There was a time when people were allowed to discharge firearms within city limits, and this activity was enjoyed by many people, usually on holidays such as the Fourth of July and New Year's Eve. But with increases in population, it happened that on occasion, bullets fired into the air-with no ill-intent-came down and struck innocent people and caused them injury or death. With enough of these occurrences, townspeople eventually demanded new laws, and so legislatures determined that when one person's enjoyment causes another person's harm, that enjoyment must be curtailed or removed. And the connection of bullets and smoke is no stretch: One kills more quickly; the other in far greater numbers.

The same phenomenon occurred more recently with the discharge of fireworks within city limits. Until only a few decades ago, people could set off fireworks within the city, but the increased incidence of injury, death, or losses by fire to innocent people, ultimately prompted lawmakers to decide that individuals could no longer pursue this form of enjoyment in populated areas where it was likely to harm others.

HABIT VS ADDICTION

Some people say smoking is a habit, and some say it's an addiction. Sometimes the same person will take either or both positions depending on the situation. When I used to smoke, if someone asked why I did, I would say, "Because I enjoy it; if I didn't, I'd quit. I can quit anytime I want." In this way, of course, I put forth my presence of power, implying that I was not addicted and could do as I pleased. But over the years, and numerous failed attempts to stop smoking, I could later be heard acknowledging "addiction" to other people who were also having difficulty in trying to quit.

In the end, it doesn't really matter whether smoking is a habit or an addiction (except to smokers trying to quit). If smokers say smoking is a habit, then they must be prevented from indulging in it wherever the smoke can reach unwilling people-period. If smokers say it is an addiction, then the smokers must have our sympathy and assistance to throw off their burden, but also be prevented, in the meantime, from smoking anywhere-indoors or out-where anyone who does not want to inhale smoke could be forced to do so, whether the smoker intends it or not.

In reality, smoking is much more harmful to the citizens of America than heroin. Heroin is a problem, for sure; and it causes misery to many people. Certainly it is harmful to the person who self-injects it; but that act does not directly bring injury or harm to anyone else. It does not cause the death of many thousands of innocent people who do not want to absorb it. The only reason heroin causes as much harm to society as it does, is that it is illegal. (No, I'm not suggesting we legalize it; that is another issue.) With price following risk, this of course drives the price to the point where addicts must commit crimes in order to acquire enough money to supply their addiction. It is the illegality that causes the crime, not the heroin itself. There is no such thing as secondhand heroin injury. (This is not intended to diminish the importance of the tragic loss of anyone by drug overdose, but to show the relative severity of loss by the drug tobacco. The website "wsws.com" under "heroin deaths in the US" says that over a four-year period from 1994 to 1998 an average of 5,000 people a year suffered "drug-induced deaths where some form of opiate-including heroin-was detected.")

FREEDOM

Smokers will argue that America is "a free country," and that it is their right to smoke where they want, especially outdoors. Well, freedom is a relative, transitory and conflicting thing, and among the new values in our health-conscious "free" America, is that people should have the freedom to not be caused injury or harm when they don't consent to the possibility of it. Inhaling tobacco smoke is no less harmful or injurious outdoors than it is in an elevator, building, airplane, or anywhere else. Nor is the quantity of smoke the issue: In his June 27, 2006 report, the Surgeon said, "...There is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke." ("Surgeongeneral.gov/second hand smoke") The rights of Americans to spit and discharge firearms have been greatly curtailed, and so should be the "right" to smoke if it creates any risk at all that an unwilling person will be harmed.

The difficulty lies in the definition and concept of the word and act of smoking. If smoking consisted of only inhaling smoke (such as taking in snuff), there would be no problem; after all, if a person wants to kill themselves, that's their business. But "smoking" also consists of the smoke that streams from the end of the lit cigarette and the smoke that the smoker exhales, and all that smoke travels long distances to hit other people. The amount may diminish over distance, but some still hits unintended targets: It's akin to being shot with a .38 or .22 instead of a .45. Suicide is one thing; homicide-suicide is quite another.

And in reality, there is no "right" to smoke in America. The Ash.org website (under "Right to smoke") lists many examples where the courts have held that smoking is not a constitutionally protected "fundamental" right, whether in stadiums, workplaces, restaurants, schools, on airplanes, or in most any other location, even in some cases, at home.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, it is now time to recognize and establish everywhere that no one should have to inhale tobacco smoke and thereby suffer injury and harm, whether indoors or out, if they don't want to, and that people who smoke should be prevented from doing so anywhere that such an event might occur.

Laws for Public Health:

A recent look at "Wikipedia.com" under "smoking bans in the United States" revealed over 150 entries in forty-four states and D.C., as of August, 2006, of smoking bans in and around restaurants, bars, office buildings, universities, public buildings of all kinds, beaches, public parks, playgrounds and other areas, indoors and out.

It is time to follow the lead of the city of Calabasas, California. Effective March 17, 2006, they passed a sweeping new anti-smoking law that reversed the order of all prior legislation. Instead of listing places where people could not smoke, they started from scratch and said in essence that the general rule was, nobody could smoke anywhere in the city; and then they listed a few exceptions where they could smoke. The whole effect is to keep people from being made to inhale smoke involuntarily. And violation of the law is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and/or jail time. ("NBC4.tv/Calabasas smoking ban")

It's time to make policies and pass laws-and enforce them-that will prevent people from smoking within a long distance-perhaps a hundred feet or more-from around any public building (not just its entrance/exit or window area), regardless of its ownership or use; from any sidewalk; from any parking lot; from any public park or land; from any stadium; from anywhere that non-smokers might be or pass, so that unwilling people will not have to inhale their smoke-even a small amount of it.

And the laws have to have penalties and be enforced, such as the new law passed by the city of San Diego banning smoking on their public beaches effective August 17, 2006. Violators will be cited with a $250 ticket ("signonsandiego.com/smoking ban"). And it would be proper to facilitate the bringing of strict-liability civil lawsuits for Battery by those who are forced to inhale smoke (as Calabasas has done). This could be done by the passage of laws allowing for the assessment of irrebuttably presumed injury, treble damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and court costs against offending smokers. This would encourage attorneys to bring such suits, and hence, discourage smokers from engaging in conduct that would risk them. If someone spits in another's face, he or she can expect to be sued; so it should be if he or she causes another person to inhale his or her smoke-whether deliberately or not. Calabasas has set the pace. I'm sure they'd love to have us follow their lead-and their law. And the legislators who pass these laws will find it comforting to be on the side of 77.5% of the adults in their jurisdiction.

Effects on Businesses:

Owners of restaurants, bars, and other businesses, will complain loudly that if people can't smoke outside their establishments, they will lose business. But this is a "smokescreen" that they have raised many times before, such as when it was time to pass the "smoking-section" laws, and again with the laws banning smoking indoors, and it has been proven false every time. Their businesses are even fuller than they were before. Experience (discoverable by the most cursory Internet investigation) has shown that most of these businesses actually increase when such laws are passed. The reason? Because, while many non-smokers will refuse to frequent a smoke-filled location, smokers do not hesitate to enter places where there is only air. And so it will be when the new policies and laws are passed.

On January 29, 2001, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce President and CEO David E. Garth wrote a letter to Nebraska Senators favoring smoke-free legislation. In 1990, San Luis Obispo was the first city in the world to pass a smoking ban in all public buildings, including restaurants and bars. In his letter, Garth acknowledged that the Chamber had had fears about possible losses to businesses and that the legislation was essentially based on faith. Then he said that since the law's taking effect, "According to reports issued by the California State Board of Equalization, the number of eating and drinking establishments in the city have grown, taxable transactions of eating and drinking establishments have eclipsed statewide levels, the number of tourists to the city has grown exponentially, and the ever-important transient occupancy tax collected by the city is at a record high. In fact, we believe that tourists seek out San Luis Obispo as a vacation destination because of our clean air and pristine environment and appreciate our concern for the health of our visitors and residents." (www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html)

In the same letter, Garth added this: "An interesting side note: restaurants just outside of our city limits, ended up [voluntarily] enforcing the ordinance (before it became state law) to compete with city-wide restaurants who were reaping the benefits of the smoking ban."

With the new health-promoting laws, theaters, airplanes, restaurants, bars, hotels, stadiums, and other businesses will be even more full than they are now.

The Smokers:

There will be noise for awhile from the smokers, but then they will adapt, and refrain from smoking where they are not allowed-as they have already done. They will continue to enjoy themselves as they do now by eating in smoke-free restaurants, watching two-hour movies or plays without smoking, and even sitting comfortably on a plane without smoking for twelve hours from Los Angeles to Europe. And they will be able to do these things and more knowing they are not offending the people around them-often their own friends who are too polite to tell them how uncomfortable they really are. And the people who don't want to inhale smoke won't have to.

Places for Smoking:

There should be places where people can smoke, such as in their own homes and cars (when no children are present). There could also be more smoking clubs, and if the demand is great enough, there will be. (Smoking sections-even outdoors-don't work because the smoke does not stay within them.) Any place where there is a zero chance that any non-smoker will be exposed to even a small amount of smoke might, upon proof, be allowed. The purpose is not to prevent smokers from smoking, but to prevent them from forcing non-smokers to do so.

Finally:

The issue is the health and safety of the greater American public. Smoking is legal (in certain locations), but only because of its history and the economy it supports. With the documented harm it does, if it had come newly on the American scene, such as LSD, methamphetamine and other drugs, it would have been outlawed early on. But the fact that the law allows people to engage in self-damaging activities, does not mean they should be allowed to impose that damage on others.

The time has come that we have a society in which the minority is not allowed-whether by addiction or for pleasure-to subject the majority to injury or worse. The time has come that we have a society in which we can all be happier, healthier and live together.

***