Centerfield: Transfats and Smoking: Why Can't We Worry About Something Real, Like Running In The Hall With Scissors?

March 07, 2007

Transfats and Smoking: Why Can't We Worry About Something Real, Like Running In The Hall With Scissors?

I don't understand why we haven't yet banned running in the hall. After all, running in halls is a clear health menace. Millions of kids must've been hurt worldwide. There are certainly more deaths from that dangerous running with scissors than from transfats, or maybe even secondary smoke.

Write your Congressmen! ;-)

Let's take a look at secondary smoke. It's been pretty well shown that very high levels of secondary smoke exposure do have bad health effects. Certainly, warnings of the hazards are appropriate. Where the data ends is any good picture of how many people in our society are actually living with a substantially heightened risk. Remember, high levels of secondary smoke are needed to get the bad health effects. I feel that, in a free society, it's wrong to regulate something when little harm from it has been demonstrated (notice that I'm talking strictly about public smoking ordinances here).

Here's what is known. From the press release:

Children in families with lower income and education were more likely to have been exposed to cigarette smoking and were more likely to have experienced fair or poor health.
About two-thirds of young children in families with incomes of less than $10,000 were ever exposed to smoke compared to 36 percent of children whose family income was $40,000 or more, almost twice the risk.

What they're saying is that a study has been done that shows a correlation between secondary smoking and poor health, with the worst health and smoking in poor families. The problem is that poverty has been solidly and clearly shown to be a cause of bad health. So, are these children in worse health because of smoking or poverty? We don't know, until some study is done that controls for poverty and other confounding factors (does anybody know of one?). Thus, I feel public smoking regulation isn't appropriate, and I voted against it here in Austin (alas, on the losing side).

Posted by Jon Kay at March 7, 2007 07:07 PM

Comments

Legal restrictions against exposure to second-hand smoke on health reasons may well be an over-reaction. On the other hand, restricting smoking in public areas on the grounds that it constitutes a public nuisance seems entirely reasonable. Especially if the implementation allows for businesses which provide smoking environments to set up (at least as densely as Starbucks) to cater to the needs of smokers. Bring back the opium dens!

Posted by: wj at March 8, 2007 10:52 AM

The definintion of "public areas" is important. Bars and restaurants come to mind as being distinct from the the DMV or court house. The government, I would think, can unquestionably ban smoking in its own buildings, but what of the bar or restaurant owners' buildings? If I make the investment in a bar, can I be told what to do on the basis of a public nuisance that does not leave my property? I would probably be allowed to fart in my customers' faces, though it wouldn't be very good for business. Smoking seems to be the same thing to me. If people don't want to go into a smokey bar, they don't have to. If enough people want to go to smoke-free bars, it might be worth my while to ban smoking as the owner of the bar. That's the libertarian in me taking, BTW. I'm quite pleased with the practical results of the smoking bans in NYC, NJ and Phila. It's nice not to come home after a night out requiring a shower.

Posted by: WHQ at March 8, 2007 12:05 PM

I am leary when the state tries to impose restrictions on legal practices, but within a public setting the policy goals of the general public must take precedence over an individuals individual exercise of a particular liberty.

However, the state rarely stops after one each. They want the whole mile.

A shameless plug, http://avoiceofreason.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/states-go-after-smoking-in-vehicles-with-kids/

Posted by: AVoiceofReason at March 8, 2007 07:29 PM

If you think the smoking ban has saved you from a shower after a day's work in NYC, I would hate to be your girlfriend.

Just look at the brown film that collects on the window sill after a day. Particulates represent an even greater problem to non smokers, than second hand smoke. Asbestos, lead, fiberglass and harmful organic vapors are regulars in NYC air. Mold, roach feces, rat droppings and sewer leaks pollute interior air.

Kids should not be subject to smoke in cars, but then again, fetuses shouldn't be exposed to a lot of things too.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 9, 2007 08:25 AM

"If you think the smoking ban has saved you from a shower after a day's work in NYC, I would hate to be your girlfriend."

Max, I'd hate it if you were my girlfriend, too...

:-)

Posted by: Patrick at March 9, 2007 10:51 PM

LOL.....yes, you would hate it and so would I. How should I have phrased that? If you were a girl, I would hate being your boyfriend? I think that might be true regardless of the air pollution......

interesting view from an Iraqi Sorry, not on topic, but still interesting.

Posted by: Maxtrue at March 10, 2007 09:54 AM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

March 07, 2007

Transfats and Smoking: Why Can't We Worry About Something Real, Like Running In The Hall With Scissors?