A clean-air double standard

Anyone who takes the train or the Chinatown bus to New York City from Philadelphia on the weekend can notice that there is a rivalry between the cities. Echoing a move on the part of its older brother, Philadelphia City Council is considering a smoking ban for restaurants and bars.

The idea of a smoking ban, officially the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law, is hard to oppose. The Clean Air Council explains, "By passing smoke-free legislation, City Council will be taking an historic step toward protecting workers and the public from the third leading cause of preventable death in the country: secondhand smoke."

New York is not the only place to ban smoking in many public places. Delaware and nine other states have banned smoking, as have Ireland and Italy.

Even in France, where smoking remains an ingrained habit, modifications are being proposed to the 1993 anti-smoking law. Christian Peschang, secretary-general of France's National Committee Against Tobacco Addiction told Time magazine in 2003, "There's a tenacious tobacco culture in Europe that regards smoking as an inalienable right and victimless luxury that only wimps complain about. That's insane. The smoker is a victim, those who breathe secondhand smoke are victims, the millions of loved ones who survive them are victims."

But if putting a law on the books is one thing, enforcing it is another. And smokers' advocacy groups defy governments to enforce the laws and tell them what to do.

Time also quoted Telemaque Maratos, a spokesman for one such group in Athens, characterizing restrictions as "a mix of governmental meddling and misplaced moralizing, rather than a workable health policy. 'These measures assume Greeks are naive and in need of a nanny state to guide them down a politically correct path,' says Maratos. 'We're a live-and-let-live lot.'"

Yet exactly how far does freedom extend? Time further summarized the debate, stating, "The essence of community is an agreement that personal freedoms must be limited when they begin to harm others."

One of the strongest arguments in favor of a smoking ban is that the smoke not only harms other patrons, but especially affects people who are working in smoke-filled environments. A smoky bar may only leave a slight smell on your coat when you go to the office or departmental happy hour. However, for waiters and bartenders who spend long hours there, the negative effects are intensified.

In the face of a great deal of evidence that smoking harms the body, a ban seems logical. Unfortunately, there's a catch. Philly's proposed slot parlors would be exempt. There is an important disconnect in this policy.

This exception shows that City Council is not actually sincere about wanting to protect our health. This inconsistency reveals that government is swayed too easily by interest groups and the hope of making quick money off gambling. According to the Philadelphia Daily News, gaming parlors in Delaware "saw a temporary 12 percent decline in business when forced to go smoke-free three years ago."

What message is City Council trying to send with this important exception? Maybe that it's all right to smoke while you gamble, a potentially socially destructive activity.

Concern for the health of people who work in casinos and slot parlors seems to be lacking. Does the fact that these employees work in a place full of one-armed bandits excuse lawmakers who are robbing them of protection for their health?

The real issue is what right lawmakers have to tell people what they can and cannot do. In principle, adults are supposed to be able to make these decisions for themselves. If an adult wants to smoke, knowing the damaging effect to his health, he perfectly well has the right to do so.

The question in the case of the smoking ban is an adult's right to inflict his choice on other people.

So if City Council takes the viewpoint that smoke in a workplace harms the workers, it needs to include all workplaces. It is unacceptable to allow an exception like that for slot parlors. To improve the health and well-being of the city as a whole, council members need to forgo the short-term gain from the 12 percent of smokers who may choose not to gamble because of the ban. The long-term benefit is something I'd be willing to bet on.

Edith Mulhern is a senior French, international relations and history majorfrom Ardmore, Pa. Voice of the Sparrow appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.