13 of 47

Write now Article Tools

Secondhand smoke is highly toxic, yet it is sometimes in such abundance, or so incorrectly located, that it seems inescapable. Non-smokers have a basic human right to breathe clean air, but smokers have basic human rights, as well. The crux of this "Health vs. Human Rights" problem is that smoke is obviously gaseous, and is thus an equal-opportunity lung infiltrator.

If we had a technology that could somehow keep secondhand smoke separate from relatively clean air at interior locations, then the warring smokers and non-smokers might not be at each other's throats so much. They might even consider a truce. How cool would that be?

Many smokers feel victimized by societal pressures and governmental bans, even though millions are trying to quit. Should certain venues be labeled as "Smoking Only"? Should smoking bans be placed and enforced in certain states? Should restaurant owners shell out tons of money to build airtight walls between smoking and non-smoking seating areas?

These highly unlikely ideas illustrate that smoking bans are a dangerous form of segregation. Forcing people with an unhealthy addiction away from the mainstream of society may sound safe, but without offering them any real help, such separation is not the answer. Unfortunately, with numerous staunch supporters in both camps, there seem to be very few alternatives, aside from an individual smoker making his or her own decision to quit.

== Basic Rights ==

Smoking is unhealthy. This is an undisputed, scientifically proven fact that supports the argument for banning indoor smoking. However, a smoker may cite Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, which states (in part): "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care..."

Clean air is not listed in the article, and no one can truly define "standard of living" except the individual. If a smoker decides that her personal standard includes the continuation of this unhealthy habit in an enclosed space with lots of non-smokers, nothing can change her mind. Perhaps she considers public smoking "adequate" enough for her health.

The flip side of the argument is, of course, the right of a non-smoker to maintain a "standard of living" that includes not having to breathe smoke-filled air. In his eyes, being in or near smoke is not "adequate"

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Smoking should be banned in all interior public spaces?
We want to hear your view. Write now!