Secondhand morality

Invading our right to privacy

By Margaret Mele
From the December 2005 Print Edition

Berkeley wants to outlaw smoking. Cigarette smoking. If Berkeley actually outlawed smoking marijuana I would be forced to repent, for surely the Apocalypse would be near. But our city government did put down their joints and pipes long enough to decide they do not like cigarette smoking. Great. Big deal. I would join you in caring less about what the organization legislates between their short breaks between inhaling licit and not-so-licit substances, but the problem we face here is one of severe intrusion by an organization that actually carries within its legislation the power of law. The Berkeley City Council has the authority to outlaw smoking. Completely. To virtually eliminate it within the city.

How is that possible?

Right now the City Council is considering laws that would outlaw smoking in multi-unit housing. Almost every residence in Berkeley is multi-unit. Another anti-smoking law the city is considering would outlaw smoking in a car with children. These laws are in addition to existing laws that prohibit smoking outside within 20 feet of a door or window. So there would be virtually nowhere that a person could light up a cigarette.

While smoking is an unhealthy habit, it is a personal choice. The enforcement of these laws trumps two of our core American values; it violates individual freedom, ignoring personal choice, and it enlarges the government’s control and sphere of influence. Can someone tell me why should I trust that this law is making the correct health decision for me? Last time I checked, as an educated citizen I should to be able to make my decision based on freedom of choice. As long as I am not presenting direct harm to others, then I have one thing to say to this government: it is none of your damn business.

Needless to say, big government is bad. It creates an organization that somehow views itself as having moral superiority over others, replicating nothing more than the Catholic Church in the 14th century. These laws would enlarge the government’s sphere and bring excessive restrictions into people’s homes. It is fundamental that we protect our liberty, especially within our homes. Citizens are bound by enough rules and restrictions that eat away at their lives.

These laws also violate individual freedom. The government should not be able to intrude into the privacy of our own homes. If an individual wants to smoke a cigarette it is their choice to do so and they will suffer the health effects.

Perhaps most offensively, this law is condescending, telling us that we are incapable of making our own choices. Every individual has a choice to smoke or not; just like every individual has a choice to be around a smoker or not. Every day hundreds, if not thousands of people, walk down Telegraph Avenue, choosing to expose themselves to secondhand smoke rather than walk down another street.

And if smoking is outlawed, what will be next? Sharp objects? Paper — because it might give you a paper cut? Where would the restrictions on freedom end?

Smoking does have that one perennial caveat, the single factor that makes it different from every other activity. That, of course, is secondhand smoke. For now, I won’t spend the time trying to convince you that secondhand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as it is made out to be. For now, let’s simply focus on matters of state and freedom. Every action has some negative action on others. Does this mean we must refrain from everything? Parents feed their children fatty foods, and give candy out to children. We all drive too fast, and potentially injure others in the process. The point of this is accepting our role in a society. If someone cannot do something in their own home, the reality of their action must be pervasively and immediately harmful. The chance of getting cancer in 50 years simply doesn’t meet this standard, especially when the logic is protecting someone who merely lives in the same building as you do.

Also, the claim that outlawing smoking in cars with children will benefit the children is specious. This law is a frivolous piece of legislation giving law enforcement one more restriction to use. If a person is exposing their child to secondhand smoke in a closed environment like a car, charge them with child abuse if you want them to stop. While it is true that children don’t have a choice, adults do. We don’t do this because we simply don’t have any real proof that this action is anywhere near harmful enough to warrant legislation. We should not make new laws because something ‘might’ be somewhat bothersome.

If the Berkeley City Council has its way you may not be able to light up a cigarette in the privacy of your own home. Where else would be left? Not your home, not at work, not in a restaurant, and not within 20 feet of any doors or windows. Pretty soon just to get your nicotine fix you will have to go to People’s Park with the homeless and their used hypodermic needles. Then you’d be safe. After all, our City Council says so.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot