| Analogies abound, especially in California. There is the
mandatory seat-belt law, forcing motorists to buckle up; there are the
motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws, which force bikers to wear protective
headgear; and there are all the substance abuse laws which -- obviously
unsuccessfully --try to discourage abuse of chemicals.
The common element in all of these is that of government intrusion into
private behavior which, before the laws regulating it were passed, was
not illegal or socially destructive .
We must pose the question of whether, in a truly free society as ours
claims to be, this intrusion is justified. At what point does the social
benefit become more important than the individual's right to freedom?
Is there a social benefit derived from keeping a location such as the
Galleria smoke free? Some would argue that second-hand smoke causes all
sorts of disease and annoyance, but the jury is still out on this.
The evidence regarding passive smoking is inconclusive at best, but
mostly conflicting. It certainly is not a sufficiently solid base on which
to launch far-reaching public policy decisions that impinge on individual
freedoms.
If one claims to believe in individual rights, by implication one has
to draw an arbitrary line at the point that an individual suborns his or
her rights to some concept of “social good.” If we are to draw that
line at smoking tobacco products, what is to stop us from drawing it at
chewing gum, buying spray paint or selling alcohol? How long will) it be
until selling (and possessing) cigarettes will become illegal?
It is a slippery slope we have started down, and decisions such as the
one made by the Galleria simply increase the momentum. What is now a trickle,
chopping away slowly but steadily at individual freedom, could become a
torrent which washes away our rights at an ever-increasing speed. Let's
hope it doesn't come to that.
Warren Swil is news editor of the News-Press. |
In the past, secondhand cigarette smoke may have been considered
a mere annoyance, sometimes causing watering of the eyes, perhaps a raking
cough and tainting the air and clothing of passersby with the odor of stale
fumes.
But now it has been known for years that children of those who smoke
suffer to a greater degree from upper-respiratory ailments.And the link
between smoking and lung cancer, emphysema and heart attacks is certain.
With evidence like this, how can it be anything but unsafe for nonsmokers
to breathe air filled with cigarette smoke?
Smoking is unique among the harmful vices, both legal and illegal, that
our society enjoys because it directly impacts the health of those in its
path. Against their will, nonsmokers who choose or are forced to be around
smokers suffer as a result.
While excessive drinking can lead to drunken driving or other acts that
harm others, those who choose to consume alcohol physiologically harm only
themselves.
Similarly, most other potentially harmful acts which can be legally
indulged in in public harm no one but those who engage in them. If I eat
one or 10 too many cookies at the Galleria's Mrs. Fields, I only pack my
own arteries with cholesterol. No one around me suffers.
Pity that the tobacco giants ceased development of the smokeless cigarette,
scientifically eliminating the wasted smoke that even nicotine addicts
take great pains to shield themselves from by thrusting the burning end
closer to the nonsmokers around them.
But in the absence of a such a miracle of modern science, the only “responsible”
smokers are those who take care to protect the health of others. The Galleria's
smoking ban is a positive step in that direction. We can thank the mall's
management because shopping in one of Glendale's finest locations is no
longer hazardous to your health.
Steven Rosenberg is city editor of the News-Press. |
