I wrote this essay for my Biomedicine, Ethics, and Culture class last week. Even though the smoking ban is old news, I think the central points regarding the dangers of big government and the loss of autonomy are relevant. Don't get me wrong, I love returning from a night out and NOT smelling like an ashtray, but I value my right to choose more...
In this essay, I argue that government-enforced smoking bans in bars and restaurants is unethical. Using a deontological perspective, legally mandated bans encroach too heavily upon our natural rights. Even from a utilitarian viewpoint, these bans fail to reach their objectives of promoting public health, reducing pollution, or protecting citizens against the damaging effects of second hand smoke.
John Locke asserts that government is a social contract that should protect humans’ natural rights of life, liberty, and property (Class Lecture, Week 1). A smoking ban does very little to protect the right to life since, according to the American Heart Association, most life-threatening second hand smoke damage most likely does not occur while spending an hour or two dining out but rather in the home (http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=365). Also, by inviting the government to regulate personal health and well being, citizens begin a creeping infringement on their bodily rights. It is not a stretch to imagine the next steps involving the restriction of certain foods or physical practices (such as tattoos or piercings) deemed unhealthy or dangerous.
On the other hand, the smoking ban would not only fail to protect but actually hinder, beyond reason, the natural rights of liberty and property. For while it is true that certain freedoms must be regulated or suppressed in order for Locke’s social contract to function, government should make every effort to allow its citizens as much autonomy as possible. By doing so, government secures its proper role as servant to the people and protector of human dignity. A smoking ban imposes a three-fold eradication of choice. First, it removes the choice of the business owner to decide how he or she would like to run his or her business. Second, it limits the business owner’s range of targeted clientele. Third, it prevents the patrons from choosing how they would like to enjoy their dining/drinking experience.
Closely linked to autonomy is right of property. Property owners should have the right to use their land or space the way they see fit, as long as they remain within legal boundaries. The sale and use of tobacco products is legal, and therefore it should lie in the hands of the landowner whether or not to allow it inside his or her realm of ownership. In cases of rented space, it should be the landlord’s decision and should be included in the lease agreement.
When considering the utilitarian standpoint, two issues arise. An argument could be made that cigarette smoke is a pollutant, and thus should be strictly regulated. However, there are many more pressing and dangerous air pollutants contaminating our atmosphere today, such as vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents (http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/). Thus, this argument does not hold on the grounds that a smoking ban is not really solving the pollution problem and distracts lawmakers from passing more effective regulations. By forcing smokers out onto the street instead of confining them to an enclosed room or patio, one could also make the case that a smoking ban would either worsen or have no effect on cigarette smoke pollution.
One could also point to the grim death tolls attributed to second hand smoke: a reported 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 62,000 deaths from coronary heart disease. However, these numbers are incredibly difficult to test for accuracy; numerous factors , such as high blood pressure or cholesterol, diabetes, air pollution, and asbestos, could play into the cause of both diseases and it is almost impossible for current medical technology to fully identify the principle culprit(s) (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/lung_cancer/page2_em.htm#Lung%20Cancer%20Causes and http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease/DS01120/DSECTION=causes).
Since severe second hand smoke damage results from heavy, extended exposure, it is reasonable to assume that such harm most likely occurs in the home. Thus, a smoking ban in bars and restaurants does little to shield humans from the incidental consequences of smoking. If, after enforcing a ban for a period of time, the government is still dissatisfied with second hand smoke mortality rates, would it then attempt to expand its jurisdiction to private homes? This question points again to the slippery slope of expanding government power and responsibility instead of trusting the collective wisdom of the majority. In other words, if it is legal to do something in public, it only makes sense that the same rights should exist in the private home.
It is important to distinguish between smoking bans for bars and restaurants versus bans in other places of business. This distinction is necessary primarily due to the fact that, while bars and restaurants are purely recreational, other places of business such as offices, grocery stores, drug stores and the like, are vital to a person’s livelihood. Thus, arenas in which people are veritably forced to coexist should enforce regulations that serve the greater good and protect the rights of the majority. My friend’s uncle, having never touched a cigarette in his life, ascribes his throat cancer to working in a smoking environment in the oil industry, for instance. Cases such as his can and should be prevented.
Just as alcohol is a legal substance that is regulated, certain regulations for cigarette use are not wholly unwarranted. Alcohol can only be served at certain times and in certain amounts in bars and restaurants. It would not be unreasonable to require restaurant and bar owners who wish to allow smoking to confine smoking patrons to a designated room or patio with proper ventilation. However, I would still argue that such a restriction is more practical for restaurants than for bars, since bars are usually much smaller spaces in which those frequenting are aware of the surrounding conditions.
Ultimately, the United States of America is a free market society that makes an unprecedented attempt to expand the rights and liberties of every citizen. As smoking becomes increasingly frowned upon in our society, there will be a market for each type of consumer. Some prefer a smoke-free environment, some are indifferent or consider themselves occasional or “social” smokers, and true addicts undoubtedly value a smoking-friendly atmosphere. Consumers should have as many options as possible and business owners should have the freedom to cater to whomever they choose. The market will, in the end, have the final say as to what type of business is viable - not the government. Smoking bans violate both deontological and utilitarian values, both of which are the primary bases of determining ethics and morality and are interwoven into the founding of our nation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really enjoyed reading your essay. I am doing research on this exact same subject for my ethics class also. You have given me some very interesting things to think about.
ReplyDeleteOpponents of these bans repeatedly make efforts to challenge the data available about the effects of cigarette smoking, in an attempt to claim that there is not real harm caused on anybody due to secondhand smoke, however this is one of their weakest argument. Numerous researches have collected data that is unquestionable and reliable. Every major scientific body, not just in the United States, but also in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and around the world, acknowledges and agree with the results from these studies and there is no way anyone will to be able to refute these data.
ReplyDeleteAnother argument against the ordinance focuses on the threat of economic impact, but it has been proven that the threat is more imagined than real. Many studies have shown that the hospitality industry is not harmed by smoking bans, businesses continue to thrive and people continue to frequent establishments despite their inability to smoke in them. The great majority of people do not smoke, and do not want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, thus business are now able to market themselves as a smoke-free environment, attracting even more clientele. The perceived threat to business is a strategy from the Tobacco companies to downplay the real health risks. The fear of economic loss by business owners, can make them blind to the ethical issue that no one should turn their back and ignore that sickening people for a profit is wrong and in a way, they are placing a value on their profits that worth more than people's health.
Lastly, the foundation for smoking bans in public places postulates that smoking is optional, whereas breathing is not. For this reason smoking bans have been placed not only to reduce cigarette consumption, but also to prevent initiation and to protect breathing people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include lung cancer, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, emphysema, and other types of cancers and diseases.