I’m not a smoker. I never have been. I can’t really explain why. I guess I never really had the desire. Sometimes I chalk it up to my mom. She has always been a smoker.Maybe because I was around her for all my childhood years, smoking lost its edge for me. Who wants to willingly participate in something their mother participates in? It just doesn’t have the same rebel edge anymore.
I do know a lot of smokers, though. Good people who have a nasty habit. Yes, I do think smoking is nasty. But that really isn’t any concern of mine, because I also happen to think picking your nose is nasty but I don’t yell at and make laws for all those "I’ll quickly look around and then stick my finger up my nose inconspicuously" people. We see you, OK? You’re not fooling anyone.
Anyway, smoking may be nasty, but it is up to the person if they want to smoke. Laws should not be made to restrict them from their freedoms. Restaurants do offer smoking and non-smoking areas, and hell, if a quarter of the U.S. population smokes daily, then half must be "drinking smokers," so if you’re going to step foot in a bar then just learn to deal with it.
The fact is there really has been no conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke causes damage. The Environmental Protection Agency, whose report claiming second-hand smoke is damaging, has been used to support anti-smoking legislation. There are some things to point out about this study. The EPA announced results before the study was done. It wasn’t even their study – they collected data from about 30 other studies and analyzed and compiled the data from there, which is a less reliable kind of study than those compiling and analyzing first-hand data. In 1998, a U.S. District judge declared the study null and void, noting the shoddy ways in which the study was conducted and the flaws in methodology.
The World Health Organization also conducted a study on second-hand smoke. Factoring in the margin of error in their results, WHO declared their findings insignificant. WHO tried to blame the numbers on a small sample, declaring that with a bigger number of participants the study may have shown significant effects of second-hand smoke. One more neat fact reached by WHO was children of smokers had a 22 percent less chance of getting cancer related to smoking than children of nonsmokers. (Thanks, Mom.)
Anyway, maybe smoking isn’t the best thing for us, but the U.S. has a great tradition of allowing people to do as they choose as long as it doesn’t interfere with others. If there is no conclusive evidence, I think lawmakers should stop jumping to conclusions and allow people to live life as they choose. If this does become a widespread development, I’m thinking of pushing for the "loud drunk" law. Anyone who becomes loud and obnoxious while drinking should be banned from anywhere alcohol is consumed. Hey, can’t we just chalk it up to noise pollution. – Amanda Koch (The author is a frequent Current contributor.)