Reply to comment

63,000 people die every year from second hand smoke, really? How do you that? Who told you that? How do you know that is correct? At what age did these people die? Were there other conditions that might have contributed to their death such as asthma, a pre-existing heart condition or a family history of disease related to their death?

How precisely does a whiff of tobacco smoke kill a person? Yes, smoking for 50 years will kill a person, this fact has been correlated beyond reasonable doubt, but how does just a whiff every now and then kill someone, precisely? The correlation between secondhand smoke and death is exceedingly weak, and correlation has never equaled causation, although it can be a damn good indicator when it is overwhelming like the relationship between smoking for many years and developing a health problem. Given that the same chemicals present in tobacco smoke are also produced by other sources including but not limited to burning anything carbon based, and all the same chemicals are present in nearly everything is it really rational to point out cigarettes as the cause?

Assume that there is a slight increase in risk of death as a result of second hand smoke, there is risk in everything that we do, and other behaviors are far more risky than being exposed to smoke. Should the government also ban those risks? Being a bar maid is hardly the most dangerous job in America and workers in other industries are exposed to far more hazardous work environments.

Deaths per 100,000

Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002

Perhaps the government should ban these occupations as well? Of course Farmers and fishermen are on there, so we will all starve to death, and truckers, and construction workers are on there so nothing will ever get delivered or built, but in the name of safety all is well right? Maybe they died because they were smoking on the job, eh?

Another thing that we might consider, is the possiblity that it might not be a good thing to have people living into extreme old age, and the less time they live after 70 or so, is a net benefit to the living. On average smokers kick the bucket at about 72, while the average person will live into their 80s. At first being old is not that big of a deal, people can get around drive themselves but as time goes on, they require more care from other people, more medicine, more doctors, more nurses, more social security and medicare. Is it really good economically to have a whole bunch of old people consuming the productive effort of the young? Smoking is a net benefit even without taxation because smokers check out earlier, and do not prove to be a drain on the economy.

The government's obligation with smoking begin and end with informing people that health risks exist with smoking, and being around smoke might shorten your life. They might even add a tax to cigarettes to isolate their behavior by providing smoking areas, require better ventilation in smoking areas and businesses that cater to smokers, but the current governmental goals of "Creating a Smoke-Free America" is not in the interest of future generations of Americans, and the way they are currently trying to create a smoke free America is oppressive on the verge of being tyranical.