April 23, 2008 News+Opinion » Jack Hunter

The pro-life fanatics who drive smoking bans 

Aborting Freedom of Choice

by Jack Hunter
jackhunter.jpg

Latest in Jack Hunter

As with my column two weeks ago on the wisdom of smoking bans, my suggestion that private property rights and freedom of choice should be respected elicits a visceral reaction from hard-core smoking-ban proponents who believe no issue takes precedent over the public's "right" to breathe clean air. Like die-hard pro-lifers — the kind who stand on street corners with signs featuring aborted fetuses — there's no talking to these people as they can't even concede that there's room for debate. They have their facts, and they're sticking to them.

And what are those facts? Basically, that secondhand smoke kills people, as evidenced by former Surgeon General Richard Carmona's 2006 report. From a common-sense perspective, Carmona's contention that exposure to secondhand smoke is as dangerous as directly inhaling 20 cigarettes a day doesn't really make sense, and yet he felt his evidence was conclusive enough to declare that the "debate is over" on the issue.

Likewise, common sense supporters of abortion rights have a hard time wrapping their heads around the notion that a woman pregnant for just a few weeks is carrying an actual human being. But for pro-lifers, there is no debate, and some even have the science to prove it. Writes scientist John F. Cogan, "I have always been pro-life as a matter of intuition. However, as I gradually built up the scientific data, its cumulative impact reinforced my gut feeling that the unborn child really is a human being from the moment of its conception." Cogan's website is dedicated to pro-life-oriented science and has been endorsed by multiple doctors and fellow scientists.

Pro-choice progressives, many of whom are nearly hysterical in their support for smoking bans, wouldn't even give a pro-lifer like Cogan the time of day — science or no science — and yet they accuse those opposed to smoking bans of being hopelessly backward for ignoring scientific "facts." If Cogan were appointed U.S. Surgeon General and declared that all abortion was murder — would the debate be over, as many insist it is with secondhand smoke? Is it worth considering that even science can be politically driven?

Smoking ban proponents have used their favorite scientific facts to run roughshod over freedom of choice in the name of protecting the public at large. If science determined that life begins at conception (as scientists like Cogan already claim), then should a woman's right to choose end? And if not, by what moral rationale is it OK to be "pro-choice" on abortion, but not smoking?

Conservative philosopher Russell Kirk believed that the definition of a fanatic is someone who seizes upon a slice of truth, or at least perceived truth, and harps on it incessantly. Such people aren't necessarily wrong, but they become so obsessed with one aspect of an argument that they can't see anything else.

Being exposed to secondhand smoke is undeniably unhealthy, but to say that what is likely a minor or even negligible health risk should take total precedent over something as serious as property rights or any other consideration is an inherently fanatical view. Saying that property rights simply don't matter is the same as saying the right of a woman to control her own body doesn't matter.

I know many people who like the smoking ban personally, but disagree with it politically. And I know folks who state bluntly "I don't like being around smoke and am glad there's a ban." Fine. At least they're honest. But the fanatics, who suffer from the illusion that they are doing the general public an invaluable service by protecting them from secondhand smoke, tend to be insistent to the point of insanity, coming off as benevolent buffoons, impervious to any and all reason.

On issues like abortion and secondhand smoke, I believe there are valid points to be made by both sides of each argument. But the importance of being pro-life, whether that means protecting unborn children or non-smokers, does not automatically discount the importance of being pro-choice, whether that means protecting personal privacy or property. The most significant difference between banning smoking and banning abortion is that banning smoking is more popular and politically-correct.

The quality of both life and liberty has always been indispensable to the health of our republic, and both suffer when fanatics of any stripe are given carte blanche to do their damage. That certain bad policies remain popular is no justification. And that a certain brand of fanaticism is more fashionable should never make it more acceptable.

Catch Southern Avenger commentaries every Tuesday and Friday at 7:50 a.m. on the "Morning Buzz with Richard Todd" on 1250 AM WTMA.

Comments (31) RSS

Showing 1-5 of 31

Add a comment | All comments »

You guys are so fucking worked up and bitching about something that won't even affect you until that long down the road, and you expect to live a perfectly healthy life with no problems, even into old age. No Alzheimer's, no incontinence, no possible cataracts, no loss of hearing, no nothing. You just expect that life is gonna be easy-breezy when you turn 70. Well, news flash: IT AIN'T! So stop bitching about some small problem when you're gonna have a bunch of other problems when you get older anyway. And life is short, too. Just live and quit worrying about whether you're gonna get lung cancer. Life is too short for this crap. Too much stress can cause sickness, you know.

Posted by whoo69 on May 25, 2008 at 6:47 AM | Report this comment

The fact is, most smokers don't even get cancer, even with heavy smoking, until about 20-30 years later. And I'm pretty sure if a guy actually lighting up doesn't get cancer until that much later, a person standing next to him inhaling the smoke, which can't be nearly as toxic, would take about as much time or less to get the cancer. The answer is simple: If you don't like secondhand smoke, stay the fuck from it! Don't go into a restaurant where people smoke. Don't hang around smokers. I mean, how hard is this? You people are acting like 5-year-olds, trying to enforce your vision of how things should be on the rest of us. "But it's not fair! He's smoking! Smoking causes cancer." Yeah, we've heard that crap the past 40 years, and it's getting old. I don't give 2 shits. If you got cancer from "secondhand smoke", it's your own fucking fault for not staying out of the way of smoke.

And besides, if you're at a fucking restaurant sitting 10 feet or more away from a table where a guy is smoking, do you honestly think the smoke is gonna drag itself ALL the way over to you and get in your lungs and give you cancer? Gimme a fuckin break. Secondhand smoke is politically motivated, and therefore, junk science. Politics drives the research, not the other way around. People who didn't like smoking knew they couldn't ban it in certain places without having something like secondhand smoke as a 'reason.' People would never accept them trying to ban smoking "just because", so they had to invent this junk science as a "threat to human health."

And come on, do you expect me to believe that right after doctors finally announced in the 60s that smoking causes cancer that they wouldn't also, if the proof were there that secondhand smoke is even a remote threat, they wouldn't start doing extensive research on it until the late 80s or 90s?? GTFO of here with that nonsense. No one believes that crap. The Surgeon General and all these other SHS proponents are just yanking our chains for a political issue, much like global warming (which can be easily debunked by actually knowing how the sun and climate work).

Posted by whoo69 on May 25, 2008 at 6:41 AM | Report this comment

You people can act like you're the "guardians of humanity" all you want, but it's not true. So quit being so goddamn arrogant on this issue. The so-called "science" on secondhand smoke is junk, pure and simple. I don't believe this crap for a second. And I'm sure I could find plenty of counterevidence to disprove that "secondhand smoke causes cancer." And what's this crap, first of all, about it "causing" cancer?? Nothing "causes" cancer! The fact is, there are carcinogens that can and will increase your risk of cancer, but there's no one root cause. If you consume a lot of carcinogens over a long period of time, yeah, you're gonna get cancer. But if you consume only SOME carcinogens but then consume other foods or materials that fight them, you probably won't, or will at least reduce your risk. So then, if you don't get cancer, how can you say that tobacco smoke or some other carcinogen "caused" cancer? Besides, you do realize there are people who've gotten cancer but, with treatment, have put it into remission, right?

I'm so sick of this fucking liberal nanny state. Because of how litigious our people have become, corporations have to write the dumbest messages on products all over the country just so that morons won't cut themselves or trip or whatever the case is and then sue the company. "Caution: Hot" on coffee is about as obvious as you can get, but because some fatasses who ate too much McDonald's sued the company for "making us fat", they have to be extra careful. It's disgusting. Conservatives and liberals need to leave the people the fuck alone. Quit trying to ban gay marriage and deny rights to gay people. Quit trying to ban smoking and not let the rest of us make up our minds on this issue. Quit fucking suing people. Quit having the FCC parent your child because you're too fucking lazy to do it yourself. Quit telling me I gotta wear a fucking helmet. It's my choice, right? Quit ticketing people if they don't wanna wear a fucking seatbelt in their own fucking cars. Quit fucking telling me "don't do drugs" even though I'm 20 and can make my own decisions, thank you very much. I'm sick of this crap.

We've got one side of moralists trying to legislate our lives, even in the bedroom, "for your own good" or "to preserve the moral foundations of this country", and another side that's doing it "for your health" or "for your safety." Let's stop being a bunch of fucking pansies and rise up against these people and reclaim our rights to fucking be as reckless as we want, so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others.

Posted by whoo69 on May 25, 2008 at 6:25 AM | Report this comment

These anti-smoking morons are a bunch of anti-individual douchebags. For liberals, you guys don't really care about liberty on quite a few issues, gun control and smoking being just 2. I am a TRUE liberal, not some sissy jackass who defends the so-called "right to life" of some pissant scum murderer over the unborn. Now, I am prochoice, but I am also pro-death penalty. At least I am consistent when it comes to death. Most of today's liberals and Democrats, however, are not. They think taking life is totally fine when it comes to euthanasia and abortion, but then they harp on about "protecting the health of the community" when it comes to smoking or defend murderers on death row, who are as worthless as a fucking amoeba.

If someone wants to smoke, let him. If a business owner wants to fucking let people smoke, that's his fucking business. If you don't like it, get out and go somewhere else. It's as simple as that, and it will always be as simple as that! I'm sick of this whining from you smoking ban assholes. Now you've actually banned smoking in big public areas like beaches in states like California! WTF?? Do you actually think the "secondhand smoke" is gonna drag itself all the way around to your lungs and give you cancer in an instant? This makes me sick.

People like you give liberals a bad name. You are what has dragged the Democratic Party down. The DNC used to stand for liberty and freedom and progressivism for the lower classes, but you've run roughshod over that and made liberal into an ideology of only "liberty sometimes." And now, because of this bullshit you're pulling on social issues and calling yourself liberal, social libertarians like myself would have to call ourselves "classical" liberal.

Posted by whoo69 on May 25, 2008 at 6:14 AM | Report this comment

Your the one who doesn't get it Word. The public is invited not forced to enter. I love this "get used to it" and "deal with it" crap that I always hear from you people. I have gotten used to it. I don't drink very often but my state has exempted private clubs so when I do drink thats where I go. There are no plans to get rid of that (in fact recent attempts in a few towns have failed) but if they do then I'll stay home. It isn't about getting used to it. I don't agree with it Word and I have that right just as you have the right to be arrogant and insist that there be no places left for smokers to go. In the end you may win but as of right now it still depends on where you live my friend. As it is now I have no trouble finding places to vacation where smoking is still allowed and attempts to ban smoking have failed in more places then they've succeeded. As far as restaurants responsibility to protect the public, that argument only goes so far. I agree with the points made by others on that issue so I'll leave that issue alone. You don't have to go to a bar that allows smoking, its just that simple. If I invite guests to my house do you think it is my responsibility not to smoke? Of course it isn't. They don't have to come if they don't like it. Now I said that I don't think smoking should be allowed everywhere I just think private business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to allow me to smoke or not. If current trends continue fewer and fewer places will choose to accomodate smoking and I'm fine with that but that just isn't good enough for you people. Thats what makes you extremists. You hype up the risks of SHS and you except no compromise. Now in the words of your friend from earlier in the debate "I have no more time for you." Or something like that.

Posted by FrankN on May 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Classified Listings
  • Tokyo Bistro Just ate lunch there this week and it was great! They have a trendy, but… -CHS291
  • Il Cortile Del Re We went to Il Cortile after the Mike Moran Furniture show at Rebekah Jacob Gallery… -project_runwayHottie
  • Baked Heaven!!! The service was friendly & suggestive not to mention knowledgable on all the incredible… -alicia66
  • A.C.'s Bar and Grill Love A.C.'s brunch. Chicken and waffles are the best cure for a hangover. If you… -chaslovah
  • Tokyo Bistro The Sushi is AWESOME, their Dancing Dragon Roll is the best sushi I have ever… -Megan
Most Viewed


Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2009, Charleston City Paper   RSS