Policy Wise

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

A San Fransisco suburb has proposed banning smoking in multi-unit homes,

A strict new ordinance is still set to be unveiled this winter for more public discussion and an eventual vote. But instead of just the flat-out ban on lighting up in apartments, condominiums and public places that captured worldwide attention, City Atty. Marc Zafferano said the first draft would be a menu of restrictions from which council members could pick and choose.[link]

This amendment, if accepted, will ban smoking everywhere except single family detached homes. Naturally, the proposal has met with resistance and I don’t expect it to go through. Americans have a peculiar fascination for their living rooms and are wary of being told by the government what they should do within the confines of their homes.

The logic behind such regulations is to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke. However, is the science behind second smoking unambiguous? Gio Gotta Bori doesn’t think so.

Typically, the studies asked 60–70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person’s lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.[link]

It’s an interesting claim and certainly, quantifying the exact number of people who die from second hand smoke, as some have tried to do is very difficult.

Generally, I am against government interference in free choice unless it is unobtrusive and the benefits are clear enough. The purpose behind banning smoking in living rooms is to protect non-smokers-I am no sure the science is clear enough to merit such intervention. I think this crosses the line where state intervention becomes so intrusive(even when directed towards public health) that it is unacceptable. Of course, as health costs rise and the government is obliged to pay a greater part of it, it can employ other coercive measures.

Meanwhile, oblivious to all this, Tobacco companies continue to rule Wall Street.

(Orgeon article via Pete)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!