FAQs/Answers to Opposing Arguments

These are answers to frequently asked questions about secondhand smoke, smokefree air policies and laws, and "smokers' rights". See our library for all New Jersey GASP fact sheets and position papers.

 

What's the harm in secondhand smoke?

People exposed to secondhand smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), suffer increased rates of cancer, heart disease, breathing and lung problems, and developmental problems. There is strong scientific evidence that ETS causes:

• lung cancer
  
  
• nasal sinus cancer
  
  
• heart disease
  
  
• acute respiratory infections (bronchitis and pneumonia) in children
  
  
• asthma and worsening of asthma in children
  
  
• chronic respiratory symptoms in children
  
  
• eye and nasal irritation in adults
  
  
• middle ear infections in children
  
  
• low birth weight or small size babies
  
  
• Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
  
  

There is also evidence that ETS causes:

• cervical cancer
  
  
• worsening of cystic fibrosis
  
  
• decreased pulmonary (lung) function
  
  
• spontaneous abortion
  
  
• problems in intellectual performance and behavior in children.

How serious can these problems be?

It is estimated that between 40,000 and 68,000 Americans die each year because of problems caused by secondhand smoke.

Who says so?

Since the 1970s, scientific studies have been documenting the link between secondhand smoke and harm to human health. The following scientific and health organizations agree that secondhand smoke is a hazard:
American Cancer Society
American Heart Association
American Lung Association
American Medical Association
Harvard School of Public Health
International Agency for Research on Cancer
National Academy of Sciences
National Cancer Institute
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Office on Smoking and Health
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Surgeon General
World Health Organization.

 

Hundreds of governments and courts throughout the United States have made decisions to limit ETS, based on the scientific information. The evidence has also convinced thousands of proprietors of public places and workplaces to institute smokefree policies.

 

There's already so much pollution, what difference does tobacco smoke make?

Tobacco smoke paralyzes the cilia in people's bodies -- these cilia are like little brooms that sweep pollutants out of our respiratory systems -- and reduces the capability of our bodies to handle other pollutants, which are a part of our lives. Also, pollutants are synergistic; several together can be more harmful than the sum of their individual effects. Many of the pollutants in tobacco wouldn't be allowed if the source were something other than smoking. Finally, most people spend most of their time indoors, where tobacco smoke is usually the most significant pollutant. And, to quote a simple approach: two wrongs never make a right.

 

What about auto exhaust and factory pollutants?

Auto emissions and factory discharges are controlled.

 

Well, everything's bad for you -- coffee, sugar, even apples. It's all too complicated.

None of these other possible problems even begins to approach the level of hazards in tobacco. And really, it's not complicated: clean air is better than dirty air.

 

But you're fat/you eat junk food/you don't exercise, so how can you say you're concerned about your health?

I have the right to choose what's important to me. No one else can decide that for me.

 

You didn't complain before.

I know more now than I did before about how dangerous secondhand smoke is. I have the right to change my mind, to speak up about something I tolerated in the past.

 

This is prohibition.

There is a continuum between total license to smoke anything, anywhere, and total prohibition of tobacco. A society can choose to limit dangerous habits without totally prohibiting them. That's just what we do about automobiles, another potentially dangerous product, albeit one with benefits. We license drivers, inspect cars, design safe roads, set speed limits, etc. Alcohol is allowed but controlled by age of user, amount allowed, places allowed, and location, hours, and methods of sale. Our society has chosen, of course, total prohibition of some dangerous products and these limits are considered appropriate.

 

People have a right to smoke.

There is no constitutional freedom to use recreational drugs or to do medical harm to another person. Right is a strange word to describe a public health threat.

 

It's not fair to tell smokers they can't go to [fill in the blank].

Smokers may go anywhere. They just can't smoke everywhere. There are many things people do -- they play tubas, they cut their toenails, they burn incense -- but they don't do these things indiscriminately in public places. Herb Caen, the San Francisco newspaper columnist, wrote this parody about "smokers' rights" in restaurants: I grew up on a farm and certain things just make me feel comfortable. So, whenever I go out to a restaurant, I just like to take buckets of warm cow manure with me and put them on my table and tables near me.

 

Smoking is an adult freedom of choice.

Almost all smokers started in childhood, when they were too young to make a life-and-death choice, were overwhelmed by billions of dollars of tobacco marketing (which made an informed choice impossible), and continue smoking because of addiction. Freedom is a strange word for addiction, an addiction that most smokers say they wish they could quit.

 

Tobacco is a legal product.

Tobacco is really a quasi-legal product. Special licenses are required to sell it. It can't be advertised on the airwaves or large billboards. It's illegal to sell to minors. Its use is prohibited in many public places. It's more accurate to describe tobacco as a dangerous, controlled substance like alcohol and firearms. Indeed, the federal government groups them together in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. If tobacco were a new product, it would not be allowed into commerce today, given what is known about it.

 

The majority of people in this meeting/office/restaurant are smokers, so the majority should prevail.

This is lynch mob thinking. If three people want to rob another of health, a majority opinion is not the appropriate way to decide. Our society has a principle that some basic rights cannot be taken away from a minority by the majority.

 

Restaurants (or other places) are private places; let the owners decide. People who don't like smoke can just go to another restaurant.

Restaurants are places of public accommodation, licensed to serve everyone, and must meet minimum health standards. Also, restaurants are workplaces and employees there deserve the same protections as employees in other workplaces.

 

There are too many laws and rules. Whatever happened to plain, old fashioned courtesy?

If courtesy were adequate to protect people, society would need no laws at all. Besides, regulations don't interfere with people who are courteous, they only interfere with people who are discourteous.

 

I want to smoke just as much as you want to have to air without smoke. Why should your wishes prevail?

Smoking is optional. Breathing isn't.

 

I need to allow smoking to make a profit.

Scientific studies show that workplaces, malls, restaurants, and hotels don't lose business when smokefree air laws are passed. Once upon a time factory owners said they needed child labor to make a profit and cotton growers said they needed slave labor to make a profit.

 

Our economy needs the income from the tobacco business. Government needs taxes from tobacco sales.

This is short sighted. Society as a whole, and government in particular, spends more because of the death, disease, and destruction caused by tobacco than we gain from allowing tobacco business. Money not spent on tobacco would go into other areas. The human cost is the cost that really matters.