Banning Indoor Smoking

You'll not find a better example of Portland's nanny-state liberalism than today's Oregonian op-ed by PSU art professor Walton Bernard Fosque. Fosque harps on the fact that there are supposedly 800 deaths a year from second-hand smoke in Oregon (a figure relying on dubious self-reporting methodologies that some dispute).

Who are these people dying of second-hand smoke? My guess is that they are primarily (1) nonsmoking spouses of smokers, and (2) people like bartenders and waitresses who choose to work in a smoke-filled environment. Both of these groups of people choose to live/work in suspect environments, as is their right. Individuals all the time choose to be in suspect/dangerous environments (driving, outdoor recreation, industrial) because they have decided the risks are worth it.

Individuals in both of these groups had other options, but presumably choose to live/work in a smoky environment because they decided the benefits outweighted their risks. Individuals in both groups could have easily avoided living/working in smoky environments if they wanted.

Indeed, I can barely even tell you the last time I was exposed to secondhand smoke. There is no smoke where I live, work, shop, or visit. None of my friends are smokers. There is the occasional waft when I walk in Tom McCall Park along the Willamette River. And while it was momentarily unpleasant, I'm sure it does me no harm. Indeed, my last exposure to concentrated secondhand smoke was probably when visiting a relative in November 2005, and that was because I decided not to make a fuss about it since I would only be there for two hours, and we shared a good bottle of wine. And before that--well, I can't even remember, my exposure is so rare.

So individuals have it well within themselves to avoid secondhand smoke. The only people who don't are children, and for them I have much more sympathy. (Of course, it is not children who are making up this 800 per year death statistic.) Both my parents smoked when I was a kid, and I grew to hate it. I have suffered no noticeable damage as a result--no cancer and no respiratory problems, so far. But if you want to ban smoking around children -- in homes and in cars -- I would probably go along with that. They do not have a choice.

But I'm not willing to ban indoor smoking to avoid secondhand smoke. Adults may choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke, just as adults may choose to smoke. The aesthetic and health effects have been well-known for a long time. People are still free to risk their health if they want. (I suspect this will be in dispute as government comes to "pay" for more and more of our health costs. Already in West Virginia Medicare is going to "prod patients towards health" by punishing those who do not join weight-loss or antismoking programs, or who miss too many appointments, by denying important services (NY Times, Dec. 1, 2006)).

Art professor Fosque has it well within him to avoid secondhand smoke. Why do we have to pass all kinds of laws and take freedoms away from others because something is dangerous? Lots of things are dangerous--driving is dangerous, as is unprotected sex, as are swimming and rock climbing. Are we going to ban all of these as well? Next--you can be sure--people like Fosque will be coming around to ban the dangerous activity that you enjoy. It will be for the common good, after all, and nothing is more important than the common good--not in their eyes, anyway.