What are we trying to accomplish with smoking laws?

Smoking ain’t what it used to be. 

Smoking was once more than a way to look cool, it was a way to look normal. 

Data really isn’t needed to support the claim that more people smoked before its hazardous effects were discovered. More interesting is the change that a lower smoking rate has had on society and legislation. 

Through the mid-1990s smoking was viewed as a sort of personal choice. Almost every restaurant had a smoking section. Many stocked their own matchbooks. Smoke hung dense then.

Perhaps it was the findings of later research on the effects of second-hand smoke that besmirched the congeniality of non-smokers. Maybe it’s the smell. 

To an ever-increasing degree smokers are now viewed as pariah. Their suddenly filthy habits are sequestered to ever-greater extents. Rare now are truly smoker-friendly establishments. Even matchbooks are hard to come by.

Despite the increased awareness of cigarettes as pretty much an all-around terrible behavior, you can still smell their smoke in America’s air. Smokers are a minority now. Their rights lack representation. 

The extent to which we limit smokers’ rights is a matter of ethical ambiguity. For in the grand scheme of things, anti-smoking zealots kind of have a point in saying that anything we do to curtail smoking is a long-term favor to smokers. Smoking is bad and they should quit anyway.

At least that’s one way of thinking about it. Of course, the opposing argument holds that smokers have rights. 

Clearly the issue is complicated. Legislation has thus far mainly protected the non-smoker. Cigarette prices have risen, yes, but acts like the laws against indoor smoking were based on medical reasoning. 

Newer laws seek to curtail and control smoking in outdoor areas. It takes sustained exposure for second-hand smoke to be dangerous.

So maybe it is just the smell. Or maybe it’s how smokers drop their butts everywhere without much concern.

But maybe these increasingly tough blows to the smoker are manifestations of a broader shift in society’s view of unhealthy choices.

Consider the overweight. Obesity is a leading cause of health problems. But it used to be a valid choice. Now it’s a bad one. It burdens the health care system and so on. So McDonald’s had better get their act together or else.

Or else what? How much can we really do to curtail these vices?

Shooting up heroin is a choice too. It used to be a valid one. Sherlock Holmes did it. Now it’s super-duper illegal and definitely unwholesome. Will tobacco go the way of heroin?

Even at the unassuming Western Michigan University, ordinances against smoking are very prominent. But are they practical?

Smoking within fifty feet of WMU’s buildings is prohibited. But how far is fifty feet? And why are all the ashtrays placed by buildings’ entrances? What has changed here? Nothing. Regardless of whether these rules are intended to curtail smoking or to protect the rights of non-smokers, their contingencies are not effective.

The elimination of a smoking dorm is a pretty obvious attempt to discourage tobacco use. It’s also problematic. As a result WMU must compensate for a markedly increased ratio of smokers in smoker-unfriendly dorms.

And worse yet is that many of the smokers in smoker-unfriendly dorms are not yet committed smokers but rather fledgling or else “social” smokers. And many of them are quite friendly.

Smoke rising from the Valley dorms signals a problem. The “smoker’s islands” are a deathtrap. They encourage smoking by creating a community for smokers. And along with the community comes a sense of community, a feeling of belonging to a group.

And it’s a very good feeling. Behavioral psychologists would say it reinforces smoking. Smoking is more pleasurable and more attractive and more enticing when it makes you a part of a group.

WMU needs to look at their smoking policy. But it seems like WMU should first look at what they want out of their smoking policy. Do they want to control smoking or actually reduce it? There are arguments for either choice.

It takes honesty to make this call. But it is imperative that they do so. Why must policies on tobacco use continue to change? The facts are in. Smoking is bad. We should now establish goals and endeavor to reach them. Our goals are determined by public opinion. Let us find that opinion.

Short URL: http://www.westernherald.com/?p=8872

Posted by heraldstaff on Sep 30 2009. Filed under Editorial, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

http://HeraldStaff