A majority of Ontarians support the idea of extending Ontario’s smoking ban (Smoke Free Ontario) to include rental apartments. That’s right, people’s private residences. I’ll pause for a moment while our Libertarian readers catch their breath. 37% of respondents opposed such a ban. This is actually good news given that only 15% of Ontarians smoke. Assuming all 15% are against such a ban, that leaves 22% of Ontario’s non-smokers out of the “self-righteous, anti-choice” category.
It is certainly easy to see the logical progression taken by the 60% of the population that would try to regulate a legal activity within private residences. They assume:
1. Second-hand smoke has been proven scientifically to cause cancer.
2. Such a ban would have no effect on them personally.
3. Those smokers should quit anyway.
4. It is acceptable for the government to make moral choices for people.
While one can certainly understand the logical progression leading to support of this ban, there is only one problem with these steps; each and every one of them is false.
The “science” behind the second-hand smoke craze is at best shaky and at worst outright deception. In fact, a massive study of 118,000 people over 40 years found no major effect associated with second-hand smoke. While the evidence continues to point to second hand smoke being virtually harmless, momentum continues to push public opinion the other way.
It is human nature to be more concerned about one’s personal interests than the freedom of others. That fact alone, however, is not sufficient to justify selfishness in our modern world. The foundation of a free society is freedom of choice. While a balance must always be struck between personal freedom and the “common good”, weight should always be given to freedom first. Charles Mingus eloquently highlighted this fact in his adaptation of Martin Niemöller’s famous poem:
One day they came and they took the Communists
And I said nothing because I was not a Communist
Then one day they came and they took the people of the Jewish faith
And I said nothing because I had no faith left
One day they came and they took the unionists
And I said nothing because I was not a unionist
One day they burned the Catholic churches
And I said nothing because I was born a Protestant
Then one day they came and they took me
And I could say nothing because I was as guilty as they were
For not speaking out and saying that all men have a right to freedom
Perhaps the proposed ban won’t affect that 60% of the population, but where do we draw the line? What happens when a majority of the population decides that you shouldn’t enjoy chocolate? Drink coffee? Eat fast food? Slug back a beer? Cook food that has an odour? Perhaps even those who support smoking bans in bars would have a different opinion if they owned a restaurant and were told they could serve only vegetarian meals and bottled water.
The Western World is running into many tough questions and choices as we try to allow personal freedom while also creating a good society for everyone. We will have many difficult choices as we tackle the problem of global climate change (which requires collective action to resolve). Abortion, spanking, gay marriage and polygamy are all issues that will continue to spark a great deal of controversy. While the answer is not always clear-cut, it should always be deliberated within the paradigm that individual freedom of choice is of paramount importance in a just and free society.
great post, gurr8. Minnesota has just enacted a state-wide ban on smoking in public places, and our Republican governor regrettably signed it. Same thing is happening with the trans-fat issue, because science has supposedly proven that it is bad for people, it is ok for government to ban the use of it. As for the smoking ban, I really feel sorry for the rural Minnesota bars that will lose a significant portion of their business and likely go out of business because they cannot allow people to smoke inside. I don’t smoke and find it a repulsive habit, but to modify Voltaire, though I dislike smoking, I will fight for your right to smoke.
Interesting that we can tell people what they can do with their bodies with fats and cigarettes, but we better not dare tell people what to do with their bodies when it comes to abortion.
Have these smokers no concern for anyone else - other people such as myself who has asthma.
I cannot even go visit with my friends some of the times.
I travel a good distance to play Mah Jong .
Sometimes there are inconsiderate people who insist on smoking in spite of other people and patients health concerns.
You’re right, Ruth. Smokers should show consideration to those around them who do not enjoy smoking. However, one must carefully consider whether a law is the best solution to a problem.
At many times I have been annoyed by the smell of “foreign food” (for lack of a better term) in my apartment building. Although annoyed by this ‘intrusion’ it never crossed my mind to create a law banning cooking smelly food. I feel that if my neighbours are doing something legal that annoys me, I should find a better place to live.
“Have these smokers no concern for anyone else - other people such as myself who has asthma.”
I don’t know if they have concern. I’d say that common decency requires people not to smoke in a public area, because smoke bothers many people. The etiquette in a bar is different. Smoking is expected, and people who don’t like it are expected to go elsewhere. That seems reasonable to me. Smoking should be allowed as long as it doesn’t cause undue hardship on others. So smoking in a train or airplane is unacceptable because the smoke is bothersome to others, but smoking in your own living room (or in a bar where patrons can reasonably expect to encounter smoke) is fine.
I don’t have asthma, but I am very sensitive to certain odors. I can’t stand walking down the aisle in the store that has the garden pesticides in it. So while there may not be any conclusive scientific proof that walking down the pesticides aisle or being in a room with smokers will harm me, my common sense is telling me that it harmful.
And the thing about rental apartments is that the residents don’t actually own them. Smoke residue sticks around for a long time in furniture and even walls (have you ever cleaned a car formerly owned by a smoker?–brown residue coats the windows, headliner, etc.) My point is that the owner of the apartment complex may have difficulty renting to the next tenant if the apartment smells like smoke.
I do understand that the proposed smoking ban would be an erosion of personal liberties. But, on the other hand, I see not a lot of harm in limiting where people can smoke, so I’d probably support it.
“And the thing about rental apartments is that the residents don’t actually own them.”
Yeah, and the rental contract can stipulate whether or not you may smoke in the apartment. This is already standard policy regarding pets. (My own lease contract states that I may not let my pets smoke, nor may I smoke my pets. I can’t even pet my smokes.) This isn’t something the government needs to regulate.
“I see not a lot of harm in limiting where people can smoke, so I’d probably support it.”
Yeah, but in their own homes? Come on. Just because a person is renting doesn’t make his home any less of a personal space. We can’t let the government intrude into the personal lives of citizens just because they are renters rather than homeowners. That’s discriminatory. My rights are no less valuable than yours simply because I pay rent and you pay a mortgage.
Secondhand smoke poses no harm to anyone who doesn’t spend significant time around smokers!!! Anyone who tells you differently is either ignorant of the science or lying to you. However, if you spend a good portion of your life around a smoker or in a smoky environment, then you may be at risk. Just like the asbestos hysteria from a few years back, most of the secondhand smoke scare is based on the false extension of risks for those who have consistent contact with cigarette smoke to those who come in contact with it on an infrequent basis.
Think of it this way… there are chain smokers who live to 90 years old; do you seriously believe passing by a group of smokers and breathing in their fumes once in a blue moon is going to kill you any faster than some other way? After all, what people seem to forget, we all die; many from some form of cancer.
Nothing is new under the sun when it comes to mass hysteria. From asbestos to trans fat to secondhand smoke to global warming, they’re all passing fads which, when one takes the time to look at them more closely, are all complete rubbish.
Darius: “However, if you spend a good portion of your life around a smoker or in a smoky environment, then you may be at risk.”
Have a read from that link I included about the 40-year study of 118,000 Californians. It found that even living with a smoker did not increase your risk of smoking-related illness.
“I see not a lot of harm in limiting where people can smoke, so I’d probably support it.”
That’s why smoking bans are getting passed… most people don’t smoke, and they don’t see the harm in telling other people what to do as long as it’s beneficial to everyone. Beware that attitude when the next fad comes along making fast food or public cell phone use a cultural faux pas. It’s ironic in this era of “tolerance” that everyone wants to legislate the behavior of others. “I’ll tolerate your smoking for now, but wait til my congressman hears about you and your ilk.”
gurr8, that may very well be true, but I think the jury is still out on that one since equally valid studies contradict each other on that point. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true, but for the point of this discussion, it doesn’t really matter. What is obvious to me without even seeing any studies is that secondhand smoke does not harm people who aren’t in regular contact with it, and most likely only causes minor harm to most of those who do live in a smoky environment. If smoking were so detrimental, no smokers should be living past 60, even if they quit after 15 years of smoking. However, you find millions of people just like my great grandpa who is 97 but smoked for many years when he was younger until he quit in his middle ages. If someone like that can have their body purge itself of the toxins (even after decades of putting them into their body), why can’t someone who briefly inhales a whiff of passing cigarette smoke filter it out of their system within minutes????
You are quite right that the owner of the apartments himself can restrict whether or not he allows smoking or pets, so that should be enough to solve my concerns. If he is smart, he will do just that. Just like motels/hotels now offer smoke-free rooms as way to make their property more attractive, so people who own apartments could list no-smoking as a way to attract renters who can’t tolerate the stink. Having smokers is going to lessen the value of the property long-term, so it would be in the apartment owner’s best interest to disallow smoking in his rentals.
I disagree with your thought that a rental is just as much of a personal space as a home. Who does more work to keep the place in good shape–a renter or an owner? (eg. you or your dad?) But that is off topic, so I’ll shut up, except to say my mortgage is paid off! *dances*
“Who does more work to keep the place in good shape–a renter or an owner?”
When you come to my house, look at our front yard (renters) and the house across the street (owners) and tell me. Obviously I think owners will overall do a better job, but that is not a justification for such broad measures.
Owners as a rule take better care than renters, I’m sure. There are a lot of improvements I’d like to make to the house I’m renting, but I’m not going to spend money to fix up a house that I don’t own. That doesn’t make the privacy of my rented home any less dear to me, though. For example: my house got burgled last week. I didn’t feel any less violated because I rent.
Secondhand smoke poses no harm to anyone who doesn’t spend significant time around smokers!!! Anyone who tells you differently is either ignorant of the science or lying to you.
This is completely incorrect. Second hand smoke causes no significant increase in risk for lung cancer, it CAN cause problems for those with asthma. My younger brother HAS had to be taken to the hospital for treatment after being exposed to cigarette smoke and after being exposes to cats. I propose that cats and smoking be banned from all public places as a result.
I cannot even go visit with my friends some of the times.
I travel a good distance to play Mah Jong. Sometimes there are inconsiderate people who insist on smoking in spite of other people and patients health concerns.
Unfortunately, having asthma does mean living by additional restrictions at times. Molds, cats, and many other things cause massive problems for people with asthma, but requiring clean room conditions for all businesses simply isn’t reasonable. I’d recommend doing as my mother did, and simply refuse to patronize places that pose health risks to those with asthma. With 60% of people opposing smoking, it shouldn’t be THAT hard to get “no smoking” rules imposed at some private apartment buildings.
I do understand that the proposed smoking ban would be an erosion of personal liberties. But, on the other hand, I see not a lot of harm in limiting where people can smoke, so I’d probably support it.
The long term intent though is not to “limit” where people can smoke, but rather to ban it entirely. There are also movements in place to tax/ban fatty foods and unhealthy snacks. The question we need to consider is whether we have the right to tell someone else how they can make use of their own property. In this case, the renter has full right to ban smoking, but the government really doesn’t.