More Thoughts on Smokers' Rights

Did you know that the cost of a pack of cigarettes averages $4.49, probably more now with the increase in taxes? A pack-a-day smoker, which is what I was for nearly 30 years, coughs up nearly $1,700 per year. But, as the rights people like to say, "Hey, it's their choice."

Did you know that smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in the United States? An estimated 440,000 people were hacked off prematurely from 1995 through 1999.

Did you know that on average adult men and women smokers lose 13.2 and 14.5 years of life, respectively, because they smoke? My grandfather smoked and died of emphysema. It's a painful way to die, gasping for breath. Dobly painful for grandpa. He was unable to play with his grandchildren because the effort was too great for his burned out lungs.

I've got news for the rights people, it's painful to watch, too.

Did you know that the economic costs during the same period were $81.9 billion in productivity losses from deaths (average for 1995 to 1999) and $75.5 billion in excess medical expenditures in 1998? Productivity lost that affected those other than smokers. Excess medical expenditures that resulted in excess time being spent with smokers who had the choice, taking away time and money from those who chose more wisely.

Did you know that smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually? Some choice. Where are the anti-abortion forces?

Did you know that because of smokers, we all pay in higher taxes to fund government health care programs, like Medicare, and in higher health insurance premiums?

Did you know that secondhand smoke imposes significant costs on nonsmokers and society? The annual cost of excess medical care, mortality and morbidity from secondhand smoke exposure in the U.S. is approximately $10 billion. This includes approximately $5 billion in direct medical costs and approximately $5 billion in indirect costs, such as lost wages, reduced services and costs associated with disabilities per year.

Oh, did you know this stat includes those workers who are non-smokers but must endure the fumes offered up by the rights people?


I have a couple of additional rights that have been conveniently forgotten in the zeal to make a political point:

What about my right to breath clean, smoke-free air, or am I required to change my plans because of the poor choices of smokers.

What about my right to reasonably priced health insurance, which is adversely affected by the poor choices that smokers make?

What about the rights of my children not to be tempted into an unhealthy life style, and to not have to watch family members die a slow, painful death because of the poor choices smokers make.

There is no constitutionally-protected right to smoke. There is agreement, however, that government, which is selected by the people, can pass laws for the betterment of society, according to the standards the community agrees upon.

For example, pornography is legal, too, more legal in many ways than smoking ... the courts having determined that pornography is protected speech. But the courts have also determined that communities may make choices regarding the sale and distribution of pornography.

I have yet to find any free speech connection with inhaling noxious fumes. But I do know that communities have the right to decide how to handle poor choices.

No More Nanny State

I was speaking with my father-in-law the other day about the so called "nanny state." The discussion arose from an article I had been reading in the local newspaper about the proposal to make all bars and restaurants in Wisconsin smoke-free. I recalled there had been a number of blog posts by conservatives friends in which they take Governor Doyle to task unkindly and, in general, rant about excessive government oversight. My father-in-law is fairly conservative (but a real nice guy) so I asked him what his view was.

Well, my father-in-law admitted he was no fan of cigarette smoke either, but, you know, it is their (cigarette enthusiasts) choice and besides, what about all the bars that would go out of business. I noted that he did not include restaurants as potential closings. We seemed to agree who wants to eat and inhale poison at the same time anyway?

Anyway, I came right out and said I was fully in favor of the ban for both restaurants AND bars. I explained I am the worst of the anti-smoking zealots, a former smoker and one who smoked on average one pack a day. I'm a former smoker who does not miss the telltale smell of smoke, the yellow fingertips, nor the accumulation of the following chemicals in his lungs (the list is actually longer, I just went with the popular ones):

Aluminum
Zinc
Mercury
Lead
Acetone (nail polish remover)
Ammonia (floor/toilet cleaner)
Arsenic (rat poison)
Butane
Carbon Monoxide
Formaldehyde (for preserving my youthful visage)
Methanol (rocket fuel)
Napthalene (moth balls)
Nitrous oxide phenols (disinfectants)
Toluene (paint thinner)

Back to bars ... alcohol and cigs, that's another story. Don't they go together like Sigmund and Freud, like Green Bay and Packers? We discussed the difficulty in seperating the cigarettes from the bar. Wouldn't it cause large ripples in Wisconsin's economy? I felt a moment of despair for the poor bar owners destined for bankrupcy. This was quickly extinguished by thoughts of those poor workers who must endure entire shifts filled with smoky air. Surely they can find other jobs, it was proposed, but then, I asked, why must their economic needs be held secondary to addiction?

And then my thoughts turned to reckless behavior and drunkeness. Why, one might ask? Well, you see, I reasoned, bars are major sources of drunk drivers. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll call you a liar. People go to bars, drink too much, ignore friends' requests to accept rides, try to drive home and usually make it there safe and sound. However, too many times they don't and far too often they either damage someone elses property or injure, even kill others ... all for their right to imbibe ridiculously.

We have laws against that sort of behavior. So, why not for cigarette smokers? Their behavior could be considered reckless. They continue to smoke though their smoking is dangerous to my health, similar to drinking to excess and driving drunk. Not dangerous? There are a slew of reports that say otherwise. For example, as reported by the American Heart Association (you know, I can't remember where, but a righty once dismissed anything from the AHA as having an agenda ... gee, improving health and saving lives, some agenda), a study that evaluated the smoking ban in 2003 in Pueblo, Colorado (a city with higher the average smokers than statewide) determined that the ban contributed to a reduction in heart attacks, 108 fewer in an 18-month period.

The point of this is, wasn't it not too long ago that driving drunk was considered less serious than it is now? Hands were slapped, eyes were winked and the occasional death was shrugged off as unfortunate. But no more. In a sense, society grew up and decided it no longer wanted to nanny its wayward children. Responsibililty! Charlie Sykes and his herds' favorite word.

Instead, society decided that adults would be treated from now on as adults. Don't you think it's time for smokers and conservatives to grow up, too, and leave their nannys behind?