Home › Opinion › Opinion
'Right to smoke' myth
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionRe: your Dec. 1 editorial, "Seniors need to talk back":
Some of us have fond memories of our "nannies" whether they were our grandmothers or hired help. They kept us safe and healthy.
A major role of government is securing the public health. For example, the law requiring seat belts in cars has saved lives. In the late '70s and early '80s, traffic fatalities amounted to 53,000 a year. But by mid-'90s, that number had gone done to 41,000 a year because of seat-belt laws and other technological innovations. Helmets for motorcycle riders have also saved lives.
It is totally legal and appropriate for state and local governments to protect the health of the community by regulating where people can smoke, even in their own homes when those homes are located in senior housing, apartments or condominiums. It is also legal for individual landlords to regulate smoking in their buildings.
The California Air Resources Board says tobacco smoke is a toxic air contaminant that causes injury and death. The U.S. surgeon general, in a second report on secondhand smoke issued in 2006, says we need to be serious about protecting people from tobacco smoke.
There is no "right to smoke." That is a myth that has been foisted upon us by the tobacco industry. You can choose to smoke, but where you use tobacco can be regulated just as the use of alcohol is regulated. On the other hand, people who have chronic illnesses, like heart disease and asthma are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Laws. These laws provide the legal foundation for development of no-smoking policies in multiunit housing.
Unfortunately, tobacco smoke, which consists of gases and particulate matter, does not remain in the place where it is generated.
It can move through microscopic cracks in walls and floors, through the ventilation system, through the plumbing, through the electrical system and can move into a unit from someone smoking outside.
Our organization has a mission of helping people to protect themselves from tobacco smoke. We do this through information and advocacy, not by lobbying. We were invited by the Ventura County Health Department and the Oxnard Housing Authority to survey residents in two senior buildings. We were also invited by the Housing Authority to make recommendations about the presence of secondhand smoke in those two buildings.
We are delighted that the Housing Authority and the Oxnard City Council are being serious about protecting the elderly from daily exposure to tobacco smoke. It will enhance the health of residents and save lives.
— Esther Schiller is executive director for Smokefree Air For Everyone, located in Granada Hills. Marlene Gomez is the organization's program director.
Posted by cslaurie on December 12, 2007 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for your leadership Comrades Schiller and Gomez. You are correct in asserting that all rights granted to masses are gifts from the Party. Gifts that may be freely given and freely taken away. This radical idea that freedom is not having to ask permission from the government is subversive and leads to anarchy. Soldier on in your good works Comrades!
Posted by del on December 12, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have first hand experience with smoke, legal and 'funny' finding its way through walls. I find no reason why anyone should have to put up with it. Where is it written you can infringe upon the sanctity of another’s 'home'?
And for those who need grist for their smart-aleck mills, I am an ex 3-packs-a-day person.
Posted by Andrew_Smolik on December 12, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is wrong to assume that government always knows best. Correlation does not prove causation. As the saying goes, given that the sun rises when the rooster crows, it is false to claim that the sun will not rise if the rooster does not crow. Unfortunately, many “nanny-state” laws ram these types of fallacies down people's throats.
What gives government the right to assert that the drop in traffic fatalities from the late 70's and early 80's to the mid-90's is *really* significantly due to “seat-belt laws and other technological innovations” as opposed to, say, better driver education, more anti-DUI awareness, or better roads? What gives government the right to assert that a reduction in motorcyclist deaths is due to increased helmet usage and not due to the reduction in the total number of registered motorcyclists or motorcycling miles typically resulting from helmet laws?
In any case, it is bad to compare laws to protect people against *secondhand* smoke and laws mandating personal “safety” equipment. Secondhand smoke may infringe on the rights of others, but such is not so of personal “safety” equipment. It's not as if not wearing a seat belt or helmet will somehow make that person more likely to crash into others.
In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated, otherwise known as “risk compensation”: people take more risks when they themselves feel more protected — or when they feel that others around them are more protected. If people exaggerate the benefit, then the risk will be greater than the actual benefit, hence increasing the net danger.
When an individual's action or lack thereof is nobody else's business, and when the facts about the risks and benefits are controversial, then it must be the individual, not the government, who makes the final decision.
Posted by lthrnek on December 12, 2007 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who wants to be the Hero that will run around town stopping members of the Greatest Generation who fought and sacrificed for our freedom from sitting in their apartments and smoking their pipes? I know some old grandfathers who will snarl at you and say, "If you want my pipe, you'd better bring a gun!"
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 4 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.