i'm willing to admit that there's leeway in the interpretation of any scientific research done on smoking. i preserve a healthy sense of skepticism about everything.

of course, here i'm making the egotistical choice of trusting the American Medical Association (which is not a government entity, btw - but a private organization of doctors and medical professionals) and the Attorny General (which admittedly is, obviously, a government position) over the tobacco lobby.

coming down on the side of caution based on substantial evidence and the testimony of experts when the stakes (our good health) are high isn't entirely unreasonable, nor need that decision be based on egotism or lack of respect for anyone's rights.

i mean - i suppose i could go to medical school and become a doctor and the sponsor my own independant study on the effects of second hand smoke. but nobody can afford to do that every time an issue pops up that calls for independant judgement. and again i'm certainly willing to maintain a healthy skeptecism about all ideas -- eventually you have to pick the side that seems stonger and stick with that until someone else seems to have a better point.

right now - the majority of the medical professional seems to think second hand smoke is bad for you... so sure, educate yourself -- but you can't just discount that fact out of hand. and any decision that a layperson makes on the topic has to incorporate that information, or else it isn't an informed decision.

i know that it sucks that we can't all have PHDs in genetics, physics, medicine, physical anthropology, cosmology, chemistry, and metallurgy every time an issue comes up that calls for our judgement. it would be great if we could.

but as a reasonably informed layperson -- it seems to me to be clear that the scientific community has the beginnings of a coherent running theory about second-hand smoke and its link to cancer. yes, there are some (in some cases quite loud) dissenting voices in the community, and we should certainly keep an eye on those voices. maybe they'll be shown to be right someday.

but their arguments haven't been good enough to convince the medical community at large, and that is good enough for me, Mr. Layperson. if that makes me an intellectual dwarf and a slave to fashion then So Be It. come and take my subscription to Scientific American - for i am no longer worthy of it.

but in the meantime -- i think it's clear that a reasonable person (or town, or city, or state, or nation) can still come to the conclusion that second hand smoke represents a very serious *possible* health hazard. i don't think it's fair to accuse someone of being a "slave to propoganda" or of having a closed mind merely for having taken massive amounts of expert advice into account in making their decisions. we can only go with the best sources we have available to us --

who other than the majority of the medical profession should we trust... the tobacco lobby? congress? bob young?

as a civil society with a vested interest in protecting its citizens from one another through the rule of law -- maybe that little bit of information (the one where the majority of the medical profession agrees that second hand smoke is bad) *should* inform the decisions we make.

so with that in mind - let's look at this whole "individual rights" thing again:

we're not talking about proscriptive, paternalistic laws here (like seat belt laws, anti-drug laws, and motorcycle helmet laws). these are arguably only constructed to protect people from themselves - and rightly or wrongly, certainly represent limitations of our individual freedoms.

second hand smoke laws specifically to prevent people from harming one another -- and i think therefore fall somewhat outside the realm of individual rights, and more into the realm of protections against things like theft, robbery, violence, etc.

nobody would seriously argue that you have the right to spit poison on somebody, merely because you enjoy spitting poison.

in my opinion, if you agree that

1) second hand smoke is harmful

2) people should be prevented from harming one another

then

3) people should be prevented from blowing smoke in other people's faces

seems to follow.

certainly 1) may be open for debate, but most people agree that 2) isn't (if you think 2) is false -- then i probably wouldn't like you very much).

if 1) is true -- then it's hard for me to understand how this can be an issue of "individual rights."

of course, if 1) is false then the whole thing is off. and when most doctors in america decide that second hand smoke is actually harmless... come back and i'll recant this entire thing.



------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com