by Ted Lee

Created on: July 20, 2007

In 2001, the United States alone reported approximately 440,000 deaths a year from diseases and conditions related to tobacco usage, or about 1,205 people a day, according to Centers for Disease Control. This is roughly the equivalent of four Boeing 777 jet planes crashing at full capacity every day. Had such widespread catastrophe of similar proportions plagued the airline industry, the government and public body would certainly put a stop to the madness, order an investigation into what happened and find those responsible. Yet, with smoking, many people hardly bat an eye.

It is the right and necessary prerogative for governments and ruling bodies to legislate when necessary for the protection of the public. For this reason, many governments regulate vehicular driving, chemical substances that alter the body or cause harm such as alcohol and tobacco, and firearms. Though such legislative measures infringe upon what people claim to be "rights," the right to a healthy and happy life certainly supersedes the right to smoke.

For those who find smoking enjoyable, or even necessary, many governments certainly allow the indulgence of smoking within private property. This is the citizen's right. However, in public property, secondhand smoke from smoking can cause health issues and endanger those around smokers, especially children, who still have developing bodies. Secondhand smoke can especially impede normal physical development at an early age. At this point, governments have the right to and should exercise that right in banning smoking from public areas to ensure public safety.

Certainly any rational citizen would frown upon another fellow citizen walking into a cafe, holding a vial of radioactive substances and exposing it without protection to those around him. Such is the case here. Many medical studies have proven the detrimental health effects from the exposure of secondhand smoke, and governments should act on this information to keep citizens safe.

After all, constituents expect governmental institutions to protect them when necessary from avoidable harm, and protection from secondhand smoke in public areas, though inconvenient, help to perform this essential task. A country's people would expect the government to finance and direct an army to repel ruthless invaders, to warn their citizens of the effects of certain chemicals and substances, or to put down a dangerous gunman threatening the safety of a neighborhood through police force action. If the government failed to do so, people would naturally inquire why the political institution could not live up to its mission and purpose. Smoking naturally falls under this area, since the effects of secondhand smoke are extremely dangerous to those who breathe it in.

Had smoking only affected those that use it, the right to smoke in a public area would certainly be legitimate. But when someone's activities put another person in danger, that activity must be regulated and watched carefully, so as to not rob another person of their individual health and happiness because of the inconsiderate actions of those around him.

Learn more about this author, Ted Lee.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.