Breathe your own air

  • 2006-07-05

cartoon by Jevgenijs Cheksters

Last week the U.S. Surgeon General issued a much-anticipated report on smoking and tobacco-related illnesses. It was the first of its kind in 20 years, and included the latest scientific data on secondhand smoke (a relatively young concept compared to tobacco). Not surprisingly, the conclusions were disquieting and uncompromising. People exposed to secondary smoke 's tagged "involuntary smoking" by Surgeon General Richard Carmona 's are susceptible to a range of life-threatening ailments such as heart disease and lung cancer.

Furthermore, as the U.S. report stated, there is no minimum risk-free level of exposure to smoke for non-smokers; even the slightest exposure is harmful. Thus any comprehensive bans on smoking at the workplace or public establishments should be saluted as they are the best guarantor for preventing a long-term health crisis.

By coincidence, the report provided the appropriate setting in Latvia for the introduction of a nationwide ban on smoking in public eating and drinking establishments and government workplaces. As expected, Latvia's law, which went into effect July 1 (four days after the U.S. Surgeon General's report, though a year after Parliament passed the law), was met with a mixture of delight and disdain, though judging by first reports it would appear that the private sector accepted, however grudgingly, the new prohibition.

Entrepreneurs have a choice. Those unwilling to depart with the carcinogenic cloud that hovers within their bar or cafe can designate (or build) a separate room for smokers. If the layout of the place is not conducive to such an interior set-up, then the smokers will have to head alfresco to quell their nicotine fit 's come cold rain or minus 20 degrees frost. (The law also provides for the creation of so-called smokers' clubs, though it is unclear how this arrangement will work.)

Latvia wasn't the first country to enforce such a ban, and certainly won't be the last. But by slapping such a strict ban on smoking are governments going too far in regulating public health? Ensuring that elevators function properly in high-rise residential building is one thing, handing out fines for unbuckled seatbelts another, and demanding that businessmen/property owners forbid clientele from lighting up is a third. What right is more fundamental: the right of an individual to sit in a smoke-free establishment, the right of a smoker to have a cigarette along with his martini, or the right of a proprietor to choose the atmosphere most conducive to making money?

It's not unlike the old debate about shock-jocks and trash-talk on the radio: if you don't like what you hear, you can turn the channel. Likewise, if non-smokers are offended by a restaurant's smoke-clogged air, they can turn around and go someplace else. There is a point when too much regulation becomes intrusive, if not self-defeating.
At the same time, smokers are a notoriously egotistical lot, blowing noxious fumes in all directions regardless of who is sitting nearby. The insouciance toward their own health naturally leads to inconsideration toward strangers' health. This is maddening, as any non-smoker will readily assert.

Another way of looking at the issue would be to compare total healthcare costs related to smoke-related illnesses and deaths against the loss of income for the private sector as a result of a smoking ban. Undoubtedly, the former would outweigh the latter. Thus in the long-run communities, states and countries would likely be better off enforcing a ban on smoking in certain areas.