Posted on 04/22/2006 4:26:18 PM PDT by SheLion
You're awakened to the sound of furious pounding on your door.
“This is the police, permission to enter!”
The voice seems loud enough to wake the neighborhood. You look at your alarm clock - 6:15 A.M. - and you wonder what on earth is going on. You stumble towards the door and open it, only to be greeted by a dozen black-garbed men with submachine guns. They quickly set you aside and begin rummaging through everything you own. One of the officers spots several cigarette butts in an ashtray on your kitchen table, and places them in a plastic bag labeled “Evidence.” Before you know it, you're headed to the local police station in handcuffs. The following day, the police blotter in the local newspaper reads, “local citizen charged with class 1 misdemeanor for possession of tobacco.”
Does that situation sound too ridiculous to ever happen? It should. But think about it: the police already conduct raids that are just like the one I described. Except they're for marijuana. Actually, I witnessed one while I was on my way to the bus stop one morning a couple months ago.
Now consider the fact that cigarettes are more harmful than marijuana, and considerably more addictive. Also consider the fact we seem to be experiencing the beginning of a war on tobacco, with bans on smoking in public places cropping up everywhere. Does the situation I described seem so farfetched now? I really see it happening 10 or 20 years into the future, if current trends continue.
Of course, I'm not saying that all the people who want to ban smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces actually want to ban smoking entirely. But the problem is that the ban on smoking in those so-called “public” places (they're actually private property) is a slippery slope towards a total ban. That is because the people arguing against smoking in those places are arguing as if saving lives is more important than anything else - including freedom.
If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, then we'd have to outlaw alcohol (kills 80,000 Americans per year), obesity (300,000 per year) and finally, tobacco (400,000 per year).
I'm not sure if I believe the numbers are actually that high, but regardless, people die because of those things. If life was the overriding value, then we'd have to round up all drinkers, the obese and smokers, put them in camps, and “reeducate” them so that they would live healthier lifestyles.
I don't really think we want that. What we need to do instead is recognize that a wide range of things are valuable, including life, freedom, and happiness. And we also need to recognize that we are not omniscient, and our values aren't necessarily the same as other people's values. Therefore, we shouldn't act like we're doing “good” by imposing one value on everyone.
Rather, we should let people make their own value judgments as much as possible. If someone judges that smoking is more valuable than avoiding health problems down the road, then we shouldn't interfere if we respect him or her as an autonomous person. The freedom to choose may very well result in people choosing dangerous activities that eventually kill them. So be it.
When you hear a statistic like “Tobacco kills 400,000 Americans per year,” remember that tobacco isn't jumping out of bushes and killing people that walk by at night. People choose to smoke tobacco, and they choose to accept the health risk (which is well known by now). You may try to convince these people to change, but you may not force them to change.
Unfortunately, many of the people involved in government and public health haven't realized that yet. Our current Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, has stated that he supports a ban of all tobacco products. Also, about 25 states have some sort of ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, workplaces or other “public” areas. A number of public health groups are working right now to make Virginia a “smoke-free” state.
A lot of what is happening is due this claim: smoking doesn't just kill smokers but also other people with second hand smoke. That claim sounds so plausible that even I used to believe it. The problem is that it's unproven. You can cite all the studies you want that “show” that SHS kills, and I can tell you why they have problems. The most fundamental problem with them is that most claim a relative risk from SHS of about 1.3.
A relative risk of 1.3, in theory, means that living with a smoker all your life increases your risk of getting cancer by about 30%. In reality though, a relative risk below about 2 or 3 doesn't mean anything at all. According to the National Cancer Institute, “In epidemiological research, relative risks of less than 2.0 are considered too small and difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”
In addition, the 1.3 is for people who live with a smoker all their lives. For people who are exposed to a little smoke in restaurants and bars on weekends, I think we can safely assume that the increase in risk of getting cancer is zero. SHS, therefore, is a non-issue.
We need to reverse this disturbing trend towards banning tobacco. Regardless of whether you smoke or not (I don't), you should still care about preserving freedom from misguided people. However good their intentions may be.
So people with AIDS shouldn't be required to disclose with whom they have have had sex?
There is absolutely no comparison. How can you even equate the two? You are way off base with that question.
People with AIDS are harming other people by having sex with them. Tobacco smoke only hurts the person that's doing it (SECOND-HAND SMOKE IS A MYTH, OK?)
P.C.
So people with AIDS shouldn't be required to disclose with whom they have have had sex?
S.L
There is absolutely no comparison. How can you even equate the two? You are way off base with that question.
P.C.
So people with AIDS shouldn't be required to disclose with whom they have have had sex?
S.L
There is absolutely no comparison. How can you even equate the two? You are way off base with that question.
Who says I'm equating the two? The headline for this thread says, "Liberty cannot be sacrificed in the name of public health,". All I did was point out the absurd case of the liberty of HIV+ people being infinitely more important than protecting their past or future sex partners.
Thanks for the ping!
Who are you calling an idiot?
P.C.
Must be simple.
Living life as an idiot.
~whew had me worried there for a while! I couldn't figure out who you meant!
THANK you!!! 
It is ridiculous to equate cigarette smoking to aids, agreed.
LOL!
Without a doubt!!!! No comparison whatsoever. I don't care WHAT he believes! I have proof!
Not you. :)
I was backing you up.
~whew had me worried there for a while! I couldn't figure out who you meant!
THANK you!!!
And I always have my fur up on these threads just waiting for an anti to start on me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.