I am writing in response to Michael Cosgrove’s column (ODE, “Smoke-filled logic,” Nov. 11). This is not the first time that personal freedom has been used as a reason not to curtail smokers’ rights (privilege?) to indulge in their habit in public. As is often the case, they dredge up comparisons to other bad habits, such as eating junk food, that cause serious medical problems as well. What is often overlooked is the fact that an unhealthy diet mainly affects the individual, while numerous studies have shown that secondhand smoke has harmful effects on anyone in the vicinity of the smoker.
When a Twinkie-eater consumes a Twinkie, those around him or her do not involuntarily ingest the high fat and sugar that comprise the poorly chosen snack. Not so with the smoker. Some smokers believe that the smoke from their cigarette dissipates harmlessly into the air. I have had numerous occasions when I, trailing in the wake of a smoker, have breathed in the residue they leave behind. This is not the case with “Junk Food Junkie.” They leave no trail of fat, sugar and preservatives behind them for me to take into my body against my will. Cosgrove calls on us to defend the rights of smokers in the name of personal liberty.
If they, like the junk-food eater, could keep the harm from their choice confined to their own bodies (take a drag, but don’t exhale until the harmful constituents have dissipated) I would be more inclined to do so. However, I don’t believe that the freedom to make personal choices guaranteed to us by law and tradition extends to those actions that cause harm to others. Freedom of expression does not protect you if you choose to express disapproval of someone by punching their lights out, no matter how annoying you think they are.
Private decisions carried out in public should not pose potentially harmful risks to those around you. What people do in private is their own business, so long as it doesn’t affect me. What is done in public is another matter. By the way, one of the reasons that habits, like tobacco, are often taxed is that those who tax know that those who engage in the habits will continue to pay, no matter the cost. The fact that even some smokers who have had lungs and/or larynxes removed from cancer and yet still smoke tends to bear this out.