Secondhand smoke: Whose rights are more important?
Whenever there's a story about a public smoking ban or a lawsuit involving secondhand smoke, we usually get one or two commenters who think it's unfair that smokers are under such duress. I can see the logic in some of their arguments, but yet I can't get past the fact that smoking doesn't only harm the smoker.Take, for instance, this story from Michigan. A young woman recently died from an acute asthma attack while working as a waitress in a smoky bar. Smoke is a trigger for many asthmatics, though this is the first recorded case of a death that can be directly linked to secondhand smoke.
Asthmatics can avoid eating and socializing in smoky establishments, but what about the people who work there? There's a bar in my town that's become locally famous, because they banned smoking shortly after one of their longtime waitresses was diagnosed with heart disease. They didn't want to lose her, so they made their patrons quit smoking. Now they're more popular than ever.
But what about asking people to quit smoking in their own homes? In a famous NYC apartment building, tenants are suing a smoker for filling their apartments and hallways with smoke. Though the shared duct work that allowed cigarette smoke to seep into neighboring apartments has been fixed, the hallways still "smell like a casino" to neighbors. Can we tell someone not to smoke in their own home? Whose rights are more important?
It's a debate that isn't going away anytime soon. What do you think?
.jpg)
How to Build a Healthy Summer Pantry
Worst Restaurant Meals of 2009
Natasha Henstridge Says She Damaged Her Body With Diets
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-09-2008 @ 11:04AM
Andrew said...
Regarding the girl who died of the asthma attack in the bar, smokers would immediately point out that she didn't have to work in a smoky bar if she knew she had asthma. Even as a non-smoker/smoking ban lover, I have to agree. I'm lucky that I have mild asthma, as smoke doesn't activate it, but it doesn't change the fact that it sticks to your clothes and make them stink, and that it isn't healthy for any party involved, other than for tobacco company profits.
Reply
2-09-2008 @ 11:05AM
Bethany Sanders said...
Andrew,
Yes, that's an argument I'm sure we'll here. Only Michigan has the highest rate of unemployment in the country, so I'm sure that there are people who will argue that they, in fact, DO have to work there to support themselves.
Thanks for commenting!
Bethany
2-09-2008 @ 12:47PM
Andrea said...
As a medical student, I think cigarettes should be illegal altogether. As a rational member of this society, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I think that any instance where smoking is sure to affect someone else is fair game for a ban. ALL public places should have a smoking ban. Small towns are often very short on employment, so maybe that woman had a choice between that smoky restaurant, the smoky restaurant down the street, and the smoky poolhall on the other side of town. She was obviously desperate for work because she knew the harm she was facing and put her apron on every day anyway.
If you can smoke without it affecting someone else, go ahead. Smoke in your house if you live alone or only with other smokers. Smoke in your car if no one else is riding with you (LIKE YOUR CHILDREN), but don't litter your butts all over the place. If the other tenants in the building were affected by one guy's smoking, I think they have a right to complain. It's disgusting, it is proven to be terrible for your health, and it is expensive.
I'll never understand why people are so eager to defend their right to kill themselves. If you feel oppressed by all these bans, why don't you just quit? Then you won't have to worry about it. Think of all the money you'll save, and how much better your health will be. As a former smoker, TRUST me, it is a big difference.
Reply
2-09-2008 @ 4:52PM
Phil said...
It's very unfortunate that in 2008, there are still workplaces that are hazardous to worker's health, despite the fact that rectifying the problem is very easy, and very cheap. Banning smoking in restaurants has never been shown to do any harm to business. In fact, restaurants generally increase business when smoking is no longer allowed inside. If restaurant owners are not going to do the right thing for the health of their employees and customers, then governments really should step in and legislate. Polls show that people support smoking bans by a fairly large margin. The public should be pressuring politicians who have yet to act to do something about indoor workplace smoking.
Reply
2-10-2008 @ 12:28AM
dev said...
Although smokers have the right to choose to smoke if they want to, I as a non-smoker have the right to not have to breathe it in. I have a bad reaction to smoke ~ it makes me severely nauseous and also literally takes my breath away (makes it hard to breathe). I'm patiently waiting for our clean air act to be implemented ~ October this year ~ which will make it illegal to smoke within 50 feet of entries to all public places (stores, restaurants, etc).
Reply
2-10-2008 @ 10:39AM
bugmenot said...
*It's very unfortunate that in 2008, there are still workplaces that are hazardous to worker's health, despite the fact that rectifying the problem is very easy, and very cheap. Banning smoking in restaurants has never been shown to do any harm to business.*
Just ban asthmatics from working in bars.
Problem solved without millions losing their rights.
Reply
2-10-2008 @ 12:54PM
Andrea said...
Um, the last time I checked you do not have a constitutional right to kill other people. I think they call that murder, or manslaughter at least. No one said they should ban smoking altogether, at least until cigarettes are illegal. Banning smoking in a place where other people go is different. You have no right to harm me. Even if you banned asthmatics from working in bars, they still have to work somewhere else and are exposed to smoke on public sidewalks. That's enough to trigger an attack in some. Maybe if smokers were actually respectful of OTHER PEOPLE's rights, they wouldn't find themselves under fire so often.
I compare this to drunk driving- drink if you want to in your house. If you are drunk in public, exposing others to offensive behavior, you get arrested. If you drive a car under the influence, you get arrested. If you drink enough in your house that your kids suffer, they're likely to be taken from you. Any time your drinking affects someone else, there is a punishment. But you think you have a right to force me to breathe in your smoke? You make your kids live in a smoke-filled environment? That doesn't seem right. It shouldn't be legal in any public area, or any private area shared by nonsmokers.
Consider the argument that drugs are illegal because drug abuse is not, in fact, a victimless crime. Children and spouses suffer because of their loved ones' addictions. That may be true, but those scars tend to be emotional, as I've never heard of second-hand heroin, second-hand cocaine. Smoking around others causes proven physical damage. Allowing that to continue is hypocritical and dangerous.
Reply
2-15-2008 @ 7:22AM
Christy said...
My mom died from smoking at the age of 47. And NO I don't think smokers have a right to poison the rest of us. Smoke yourselves to death in your own homes or cars. But keep your windows closed please. Enjoy your smoke all you want. But...since it is known to kill, it should be banned. Everything else that is harmful to society is banned.
Reply