Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em
Or not. Depending on where you go to school.
A local university has begun circulating a proposal calling for a "smoke-free" campus by 2010. Basically, it is what it is: the university will no longer tolerate smoking anywhere on campus--even outside. They say it's to create a healthier environment for nonsmokers and to make the university a more supportive place for smokers trying to quit.
I couldn't be more outraged and concerned about the future of privacy and democracy in the United States. And yes, it's all because of a smoking policy.
For starters, the policy is one more sign that our country is moving closer and closer toward true paternalism and away from democracy. To quote Bill, "I can't believe how many millions of dollars our country wastes to keep people from killing themselves." And you know what? He's right. Let's stop and think for a minute, folks: Smoking is LEGAL! It's OK to smoke. You can't be arrested or go to jail or be fined by the government for sucking on a nicotine stick. Yet the university wants to punish employees who choose to engage in a legal activity. And fine them if they violate the policy.
When did we become so concerned with peoples' habits? When did it become the role of administrators and the government to tell us that the ways we might hurt ourselves are bad and must be abolished? Since when did I lose my God-given right to free will?
Yes, I understand that second-hand smoke causes health problems, which is a good reason for bans on indoor smoking and creating smoking zones at least 20 feet from building entrances and air intakes. (The university, by the way, has such a rule but it is not enforced.) But at the same time, we seem to be forgetting that smokers have a right to smoke, just as much as I have a right to munch on Oreos. And unlike me and my Oreos, smokers are physically addicted to the cigarettes. Some of them really cannot quit.
I don't smoke and thankfully none of my family members smoke anymore, but it's easy to see how this policy creates an "us" and "them" mentality, whereby smokers engaging in a completely legal activity become the enemy. They're "those people" walking to the nearby park to take a smoke break; they're "the smokers." They're the Other. They're evil spawn of Satan who must be banished from the premises because they have a bad habit. And they're "the enemy" for a reason.
Cigarettes, by all accounts, should be illegal, given the amount of restrictions on them in today's society. But they can't be, any you know why? The tobacco lobby. And, of course, the astronomical amount of tax money generated from their sale. So what's the best way to handle the problem? Alienate the people who do it. Call them names. Wrinkle up your nose at them as you walk by. Convince them that they only have two options: quit or be forced to the margin of society, where they'll be scowled upon forever.
My other major concern about this proposal--and the way we're treating smoking lately in our society--is that I don't think it will end with cigarettes and tobacco. Look at New York City and its ban on trans fats. (Many other cities have followed suite, too.) The logical conclusion to me seems that after the smokers, the evil spawn, are taken care of, the fat people will be next. In 10 years time, you won't be able to buy butter or Doritos because they'll make you gain weight. Fat people (like me) will be scowled upon and forced to different parts of the restaurant so people won't have to look at us. Oreos will be the main characters in stories we tell our kids about the "good old days" when you could do with your body what you wanted because it was yours and not the government's.
I can even see this extended as far as personal behavior. Once you get the smokers and the fatties rounded up, you can go after the masturbators. Yes, I said the M Word. Think about it: it's a bad habit that can easily turn into addiction for people. Some folks do it many times a day. It can keep you from having a healthy relationship with other people. It's considered dirty. And all those mothers said for all those years that it would make you go blind.
You might disagree with me, but you know what? I don't care. This is my blog and for once, I can say what I want. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Now, where are those Oreos? I'm going to eat them while I can do it without paying a fine.
A local university has begun circulating a proposal calling for a "smoke-free" campus by 2010. Basically, it is what it is: the university will no longer tolerate smoking anywhere on campus--even outside. They say it's to create a healthier environment for nonsmokers and to make the university a more supportive place for smokers trying to quit.
I couldn't be more outraged and concerned about the future of privacy and democracy in the United States. And yes, it's all because of a smoking policy.
For starters, the policy is one more sign that our country is moving closer and closer toward true paternalism and away from democracy. To quote Bill, "I can't believe how many millions of dollars our country wastes to keep people from killing themselves." And you know what? He's right. Let's stop and think for a minute, folks: Smoking is LEGAL! It's OK to smoke. You can't be arrested or go to jail or be fined by the government for sucking on a nicotine stick. Yet the university wants to punish employees who choose to engage in a legal activity. And fine them if they violate the policy.
When did we become so concerned with peoples' habits? When did it become the role of administrators and the government to tell us that the ways we might hurt ourselves are bad and must be abolished? Since when did I lose my God-given right to free will?
Yes, I understand that second-hand smoke causes health problems, which is a good reason for bans on indoor smoking and creating smoking zones at least 20 feet from building entrances and air intakes. (The university, by the way, has such a rule but it is not enforced.) But at the same time, we seem to be forgetting that smokers have a right to smoke, just as much as I have a right to munch on Oreos. And unlike me and my Oreos, smokers are physically addicted to the cigarettes. Some of them really cannot quit.
I don't smoke and thankfully none of my family members smoke anymore, but it's easy to see how this policy creates an "us" and "them" mentality, whereby smokers engaging in a completely legal activity become the enemy. They're "those people" walking to the nearby park to take a smoke break; they're "the smokers." They're the Other. They're evil spawn of Satan who must be banished from the premises because they have a bad habit. And they're "the enemy" for a reason.
Cigarettes, by all accounts, should be illegal, given the amount of restrictions on them in today's society. But they can't be, any you know why? The tobacco lobby. And, of course, the astronomical amount of tax money generated from their sale. So what's the best way to handle the problem? Alienate the people who do it. Call them names. Wrinkle up your nose at them as you walk by. Convince them that they only have two options: quit or be forced to the margin of society, where they'll be scowled upon forever.
My other major concern about this proposal--and the way we're treating smoking lately in our society--is that I don't think it will end with cigarettes and tobacco. Look at New York City and its ban on trans fats. (Many other cities have followed suite, too.) The logical conclusion to me seems that after the smokers, the evil spawn, are taken care of, the fat people will be next. In 10 years time, you won't be able to buy butter or Doritos because they'll make you gain weight. Fat people (like me) will be scowled upon and forced to different parts of the restaurant so people won't have to look at us. Oreos will be the main characters in stories we tell our kids about the "good old days" when you could do with your body what you wanted because it was yours and not the government's.
I can even see this extended as far as personal behavior. Once you get the smokers and the fatties rounded up, you can go after the masturbators. Yes, I said the M Word. Think about it: it's a bad habit that can easily turn into addiction for people. Some folks do it many times a day. It can keep you from having a healthy relationship with other people. It's considered dirty. And all those mothers said for all those years that it would make you go blind.
You might disagree with me, but you know what? I don't care. This is my blog and for once, I can say what I want. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Now, where are those Oreos? I'm going to eat them while I can do it without paying a fine.
10 Comments:
There was a great article last year or the year before online that compared how the attack on unhealthy food is paralleling to the fight on smoking and other such activities.
First, they attack whatever aspect that they can using "save kids". The initial lawsuits vs. McDonalds emphasized how they go after children with the happy meals. (Apparently parents nowadays can't say no.)
Then they claim the companies hid the dangers. With the tobacco companies, that's probably true, but McDonalds never claimed their food was healthy.
Finally, they talk about how much smoking, obesity, whatever... costs the goverment in health care costs.
I believe the article was on Slate.com.
Anyway, I see two reasons why these things are attacked. First, it's easy for politicians to attack. It's disputable how to fix the educational system or health care. Second, there are organized allies in the fight against smoking and against unhealthy food. The opponents have no real organizations, just mostly corporations, and individual can only claim "we have a right to...". And the right to do something stupid that only affect you simply doesn't hold up in debate against scientific studies.
I just recently found out that there's a school district in our fair state that regulates what a parent can or can't send in a child's lunch. I'm sure there's more than one, but who the hell are they to tell me my kid can't have a snack pack if he wants it?
Waaah! Slippery slope arguments like these really peeve me. I'm all for individual rights, but I think you all are spending too much energy being upset about the smoking issue. A few arguments:
1. CMU being a private university means that you don't have the same rights on campus as you do in "public." Plenty of private outdoor venues ban smoking, drinking, etc.
2. Being near someone masturbating or eating unhealthy food poses no health risk to me (with the possible exception of splattering). There is scientific evidence that being near somebody who is smoking poses a potential health risk to me.
3. Speaking of masturbating, it is also LEGAL. If you truly believe the argument you're presenting, go masturbate on the mall. Express your rights! Well, maybe wait until spring - its kinda chilly out there.
4. Re: Addiction - people can be just as addicted to eating as they can be to smoking. But that's not my point - my point is that your statement that "some of them really cannot quit" is wrong. Any addiction can be beaten, but it is hard. Obviously, "hard" is an understatement.
5. Trans fat bans. Good idea. You can make oreos, doritos, and all manner of other yummies without them and there is scientific evidence that that kind of fat presents more of a health risk than the other kinds. City-wide bans (in restaurants only, so you can still buy oreos in NYC) don't necessarily limit your individual rights, but they limit what companies can put in their products. This has happened many times in this country. Did we all get our panties in a bunch when they banned lead in paint and gasoline? I bet not. There was evidence that the lead was harmful, so we found other ways to make the product.
6. Re: Bill's comment. No argument here, that's just stupid.
7. Since you are concerned about our individual rights to do dumb things, are you also in favor or decriminalizing hard drugs? And I don't mean just marijuana, that's another argument. I mean cocaine, heroin, etc. Are these just as innocent as tobacco? The only direct health risk is to the user.
Sorry if this got a bit cranky - you landed on a pet peeve of mine. Pass the oreos.
Thanks Matt. I agree. I thought about posting, but knew I would sound cranky or worse.
Waah, indeed, Matt. First off, I don't really think you ARE for individual rights after the argument you presented, but to continue, what in the living fuck does your #3 have to do with anything? Smoking is legal right now, isn't it? I mean, aside from CMU in the year 2010, of course.
And: "Re: Addiction - people can be just as addicted to eating as they can be to smoking." I call bullshit. You got a cite for that?
And the piece de resistance: "Since you are concerned about our individual rights to do dumb things, are you also in favor or decriminalizing hard drugs? And I don't mean just marijuana, that's another argument. I mean cocaine, heroin, etc. Are these just as innocent as tobacco? The only direct health risk is to the user."
To quote someone who got his own panties in a wad somewhat earlier: "Slippery slope arguments like these really peeve me." Susie wasn't saying a THING about hard drugs, dude, and you know it. And the only direct health risk is to the user? Try doing a few rails of coke and getting behind the wheel, and then tell me that's the same as smoking a few cigarettes and driving. They're not the same, and it's silly that you would compare the two.
Yes, smoking is bad. It's a bad, dirty habit, and no one should do it. But guess what? People still do, and they will for a while. And please refrain from telling Susie that she's "wasting energy" blogging about something please. Last time I checked, she can do anything she wants, right? I thought you were all for individual rights...
Ah.....the beauty of democracy! We can all argue online and no one can stop us! Here's to freedom of speech!
(Laine, Matt's a nice guy and logged on IM after he posted to make sure I wasn't mad. And Matt, Laine is a great person who just doesn't see eye-to-eye with you on this particular issue. Please play nicely.)
While I appreciate being told what I believe, allow me to retort:
The point of #3 relates to the whole slippery slope argument that Susie is presenting: The proposed ban is on smoking outdoors, not on smoking altogether. Towards the end of her post, Susie talked about going after the masturbators because its a bad habit. If the proposal went beyond one university campus and included banning smoking in one's own privately owned home (as opposed to a "rented" dorm room), she'd have a good point. I can't imagine a time in this country where smoking would be completely banned - we know how well the prohibition of alcohol worked.
Some links re: being addicted to food:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/118/112875.htm
http://www.realizationcenter.net/fdaddct.htm
In brief, WebMD says: "Food addicts develop a physical, mental, emotional craving and chemical addiction to food."
The mea culpa here is i've got no official statement comparing food addiction and smoking directly. Most of the food comparisons are to hard drugs.
Speaking of hard drugs, the point of my statements about them in my original post was to point out the ridiculousness of slippery slope arguments. Perhaps I was too subtle about that. Oh, and being high and driving and then killing someone is an indirect risk. Many car accidents have been caused by people trying to light cigarettes, and i'm sure some of these involved serious injury or fatality. Of course, the same could be said about changing the radio station, talking on the phone, etc. All indirect risks.
Finally, I didn't tell Susie she was wasting energy blogging about the issue, rather I was referring to being upset about the issue. Splitting hairs here, I admit, but there it is.
One more statement about individual rights. I believe that MY right to breathe clean(ish) air trumps YOUR right to smoke around me, at least in outdoor and/or public settings. Go home and smoke all you want.
So basically, you've got a lot of hot air and a whole lot of nothing. Good to know.
I'll be waiting on the food addiction = cigaratte addiction and the "many" car accidents caused by cigarette smoking citations. See you when you can come up with some actual data besides "oh noes! my precious lungs!" conniptions.
oh, and that last post was me, by the way. Someday I'll get a blogger account--it's the wave of the future, I've heard! ;)
Ah, we've resorted to the "I've got nothing intelligent to say, so I'll insult you" phase. A clear sign that its time for this argument to die. Since you asked for it, I look for some more data. After this, I promise no more responses.
Here's a link to a story about NJ trying to ban smoking in cars altogether. In it, a AAA study is mentioned in which approximately 320 out of 32000 (1%)car accidents were caused by smoking-related distraction. Not a ton, but certainly "many." I don't have the inclination to look up the actual AAA study.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8697348/
Here's a big difference between smoking addiction and food addiction: people HAVE to eat to live, but they don't HAVE to smoke. The twelve step programs that tend to work well for beating addiction all rely on giving up the substance of choice. You can never really "quit" eating. So you're clearly right - they aren't equal.
Post a Comment
<< Home