States Get Graded on Smoking Regulations

Jan 15

AndrewPolitics and Nation, Society and Culture , Comments Off

Question: Do you buy the smoking ban argument as a public health measure?

Answer: The “public health” concern isn’t actually addressing the smokers, but the damage caused by secondhand smoke. Employees who work in smoking environments, like casinos, suffer similar damage to their bodies as their smoker counterparts. Susceptibility to lower respiratory track infections and asthma have been identified as damage from secondhand smoke, and in some cases, so has lung cancer and stroke.

Secondhand smoke makes for an easier political argument because it doesn’t explicitly single out the smokers (even if the law itself does). Of course, what has happened in cities where the smoking ban is in effect is that smokers just stand in the doorway and patrons have to walk through a cloud of smoke just to get inside (ever try going to a bar in Boston on a cold winter day and you are practically enveloped by a cloud of cigarette ash making your way inside). Why not make them stand at least 10 feet from the building if you’re going to push them out in the cold anyway?

The state of Indiana is going through the process of trying to pass a bill that would ban smoking in workplace environments. They are deliberately playing up the secondhand smoking effects as a worker protection right. The first attempt at a bill failed last year, and it’s not clear that enough traction exists to get a new version to the floor of the state legislature.

Part of the problem is that employers don’t necessarily support the bill. Casinos and bars, for one, often find themselves lobbying against new legislation, or at least arguing that the bill include certain exceptions to allow them to conduct business as usual. And those employers maintain that if you apply for that kind of job, it is with the understanding of the kind of environment you will have to work in.

Interestingly, the American Lung Association and other organizations that lobby for smoking restrictions play up the number of deaths caused by tobacco use and often talk about how the government has failed to enact enough measures on behalf of the American people. By one estimate, more than 400,000 Americans die every year from diseases related to smoking and secondhand smoke. The premise is the basis for the State of Tobacco Control 2008 report that graded state governments and the federal government on regulations and policies related to tobacco. Those policies would include smoke-free work environments, higher cigarette taxes and tobacco-cessation programs. Twenty-three states currently have smoke-free air laws that are aimed at places of employment.

New York City is currently running an anti-smoking campaign on television that is pretty hard to watch. The commercials are graphic representations of the physical damage smokers suffer. The effectiveness of those types of cessation programs is debatable, but since New York leads the pack on smoking regulations, it seems like this is the next step in the fight to eradicate cigarette use.

It is always interesting to me when the government gets involved in health issues (like the trans fat menace and nutrition facts on restaurant menus) to see which issues have the momentum with the public. The smoking ban definitely does. But here’s one curious fact, while cigarette sales have declined around 20% in the last ten years, sales of other tobacco products has seemingly taken its place. So are Americans smoking less but using largely the same amount of tobacco? The American Medical Association, for one, says that is probably the case.

The public health argument around banning smoking has always been that while smokers themselves have a choice whether to smoke, those around them are given little choice whether to be exposed to secondhand smoke. It is always going to be a more compelling argument than protecting smokers from themselves. I’m not a big fan of excessive government regulation and I do think smokers have paid the freight on this particular issue for a while now, from social pressures to higher taxes. But ultimately, the role of the government is to represent what the majority of Americans support, so as long as reflects that outlook, it’s hard to argue against.

Why is it so dark outside at 6:30 a.m.?

Oct 21

AndrewRelationships, Society and Culture , Comments Off

The delay of Daylight Savings is another strange intervention of government that seems purposefully ineffective. Seeking to power down the nation (or the 48/50ths of us that participate in Daylight Savings) and ostensibly relieve the pressure and cost of winter utilities, the changing of clocks was pushed back another few weeks yet last year.

The result is that I get out of bed at my usual time and it’s pitch black. I need a lamp to see by (believe it or not the Blackberry screen is not much of a flashlight.) It’s neat to conceive that this, in fact, is a microcosm of what it would be like without Daylight Savings at all. If only we just accepted shorter days, turned on lights or stumbled around in the dark, all the usual things that we habituate at nighttime anyway. Is that really so tragic?

I have never been a big fan of government intervention. Government decision-making is too politicized (duh) dumbed down by corporate interests, greed and vanity and often the result of needless compromise instead of authority. I don’t doubt that some government decisions are in the best interests of the common good, even when the results seem less obviously so. But the net effect is a sustained period of darkness when we were doing just fine before the change.

It’s cliche to say “leave well enough alone” but it turns out that is how I like my government. I’m not going to further belittle the usefulness of government by dragging out the analogy because it is not without utility. But it is worth suggesting that there are any number of enacted laws that could be mitigated by common sense and don’t need a law to make the point.  Seatbelt requirements are one example. Nobody would argue the efficacy of seatbelts but that you should choose not to wear one, notwithstanding the legality of it, seems perfectly reasonable.

One purpose of government is to define the common good and enforce it, but these tasks should be done responsibly. It seems like by embracing a government that micromanages our lives, we have lost sight of the responsibility that the role of government entails. Furthermore, and vastly troublesome, this type of national management has eroded our ability to self-manage and encouraged many people to defer responsibility for their personal decisions to some conglomerate entity of the United States.

The irony is that my analogy has some holes in it since it was government intervention in the first place that enacted Daylight Savings (and furthermore, it’s not mandatory that states participate,) but I think it is still a good illustration that it is not always inherently useful to require the government to govern us down to every little detail. We managed just fine with some “extra” weeks of standard time, so in the end, what exactly did we gain when Daylight Savings got extended?  Perhaps, as citizens, we should ask that question more often, not just about the time change, and encourage our leaders to do the same. Perhaps next time, to do so before they rush to action and put something into law.