These days, it’s no secret that smoking is dangerous to your health. Likewise, second-hand smoke (the smoke that is given off from the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar or the smoke that is exhaled from a smoker’s lungs) is also recognized for contributing to a wide range of adverse health effects including cancer and asthma.
Second hand smoke impacts the health of people who aren’t smoking but are inhaling the smoke due to their proximity to one who is. In an attempt to prevent injury from second-hand smoke, many states in the US have already banned smoking in restaurants, bars and other public areas. Recently though, several cities have started limiting it even further, placing restrictions on smoking in outdoor public areas such as parks and patios of restaurants and bars. Furthermore, in California, beginning in 2009 statewide, smoking in the presence of a minor 18 years or younger while driving will be a misdemeanor offense (referenced: Wikipedia).
The ethical questions are:
- Do these smoking bans infringe on the freedoms of smokers?
- Isn’t smoking a personal choice they have made and, as such, shouldn’t they have the right to participate in this choice in public? If not indoors, then outdoors at least?
- Isn’t it oppressive and tyrannical to enforce a smoking ban in public, outdoor areas?
- When driving in a car (even with a minor) is it not within one’s personal freedom to smoke?
- Should the government really have the right to dictate what can and cannot be done in privacy of one’s own vehicle?
- If there is no DIRECT harm being done to others, should the government really have the right to limit the activities of its citizens?
These questions address valid issues when it comes to smoking in public.
Freedom of Smokers
A person who smokes should not be treated as less than a citizen. While their decision may be unwise for their health, it is not an illegal activity. They do not deserve to have their rights stripped due to their foolish decision.
However, what takes place in the public domain is subject to public scrutiny. If an individual’s actions cause undue harm on others, their freedom is “superseded” by the common good of the public. Smoking is a perfect example of this: while everyone has the freedom of choice (to choose whether or not to be a smoker), the action of smoking causes unacceptable and unnecessary harm to others (who have not freely made that same choice) by exposing them to second-hand smoke. It is, therefore, justifiable for the government to place limits on the areas in which this harmful activity can take place, in the interest of public health.
Smoking with Minors
While smoking in the general public is enough to spark heated debates about individual freedom, smoking in the presence of minors can cause intense discussions about protection of youth. How much control can the government really exert over the environment in which a child is raised? If California has its way, the answer is: a lot!
Adults smoking in the presence of minors are putting the children at risk. While adults have the ability to leave a smoky area if uncomfortable, children typically do not. Therefore, they are more likely to unwillingly inhale toxic fumes from second hand smoke. Furthermore, being surrounded by smokers will only increase the odds of a child becoming a smoker in the future. And adults have the responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy environment for children – this includes the air they are breathing. One cannot blow carcinogenic smoke in a child’s face and then claim to be concerned with their safety.
The government, by forbidding the act of smoking in a vehicle (enclosed space) with a minor, is essentially saying that adults must take their role seriously. They cannot contaminate the air they share with a child.
Of course, by that logic, should the government also limit the kinds of television programs one can watch with a child? After all, is it not contaminating the mind of a child to expose it to inappropriate materials? And, who defines inappropriate anyway? Perhaps the government should also make laws regarding the kinds of foods a parent can feed their child. In the interest of their health, ban soda and fast food for children? As you can see, this is a slippery slope of logic and one that will certainly be debated heavily in the future.
Christine Scivicque - Chrissy has been a passionate student of personal development for over 15 years. With a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration ...
