The Dangers of Second-Hand Smoke
Last year there was a long debate in the comments about smoking in public. While that conversation has been lost in the migration from Blogger to Movable Type, this article is a good example of the dangers that I was talking about :
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that an airline can be held liable for the death of a passenger from a severe asthma attack caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.The 6-2 ruling was a defeat for Olympic Airways, the Greece-based airline that challenged a $1.4 million award against it in the case of a 52-year-old doctor from California who died on a 1998 flight from Athens to New York.
The airline had argued that it cannot be held liable under the Warsaw Convention, an international treaty on airline liability, when a passenger’s pre-existing medical condition has been aggravated in the aircraft cabin.
The U.S. Justice Department disagreed. It said an airline’s unreasonable refusal to assist a passenger who becomes ill during an international flight, in violation of its own policies and industry standards, can lead to liability.
The case involved Dr. Abid Hanson. After boarding the flight in Athens, Hanson and his family discovered they were in nonsmoking seats near the smoking section, which was not separated by a partition.
A flight attendant repeatedly rejected requests from Hanson’s daughter to move him to a different seat. The attendant said the flight was full, even though there were 11 empty seats.
After Hanson died on the plane, his family sued and claimed his death stemmed from a severe asthma attack caused by inhaling secondhand smoke.
The problem here is that most people see cigarette smoke as something that’s mildly annoying, but not dangerous. As far as they’re concerned, those of us who complain about smoke in public are just whiners. Well, I hope this puts things in better prospective. Second hand smoke can kill people, so the idea that smoker’s civil rights are violated by public smoking bans is nothing compared to the rights of non-smokers to not die because of someone else’s addiction.
14 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This also shows how, sadly, while Europeans are more progressive than us on so many counts, and are often quite critical of our warmongering, our murder rates, and our pollution, many of them are still suckers for our most deadly export of all.
Comment by dAnimal — February 27, 2004 @ 7:47 pm
You wouldn’t believe how vehemently opposed to the smoking ban people in New York are. It’s as if they think that in order to prove their bona fides, they must have proof that they are rotten at the core. What better proof than an inoperable lung?
Comment by Earnest — February 28, 2004 @ 8:08 am
We must realize that “liberty” means that our freedoms extend up to but not beyond the point where our actions harm or pose unacceptable risk of harm to others. “Unacceptable risk” will often be debatable, but we must start from this point. No question, secondhand smoke was more than just a risk to this gentleman.
I believe that this issue of liberty extends into the world of economics as well. We always hear that free trade is best because it is consistent with our economic liberty and leads to optimal outcomes. However, externalities and monopolies can be real conditions of a free market, and they do not result in optimal results for society. “Consumer surplus” (the idea that what you buy is worth more than its cost) is another issue in any Econ 101 class that may help shape debates, but is also ignored. I am convinced that many of the disputes we have over policy issues are a result of one side or another (or both?!) ignoring these factors. I just wish more people would point out that these items (monopolies, externalities, consumer surplus) are legitimate topics of economic theory and have a real impact on our world.
Comment by AJ — February 28, 2004 @ 9:57 am
First, this airline was obviously, blatantly in the wrong, and deserves to be held accountable for it.
Second, the idea that smoking in public is a civil right is obviously preposterous. Anybody with a clear head should acknowledge that.
Thirdly, yes, airlines should uniformly ban smoking, as they’re clearly a place where airborne dangers like smoke or pet dander (it’s perfectly allowable to carry your pet on an airline flight in a carrier) pose a greater danger than usual to those with serious allergies or conditions like asthma. For cram sakes, the air’s being recirculated constantly. How could it not?
Here’s my problem: Yes, secondhand smoke did kill this guy. But it’s disingenous not to acknowledge that his was a rare condition, and that more often than not, secondhand smoke is not fatal to those who occasionally breathe it.
Again, though, let’s not forget that this guy got on that plane with a perfectly reasonable expectation of not ending up dead from an asthma attack. He bought a nonsmoking ticket.
Just as, if by chance you live in an area where it’s still legal to have a smoking section in a restaurant or bar, you can request a seat in the nonsmoking section. And unfortunately, often said section will be too close to, and unsatisfactorily divided from, the smoking section. This is a problem that needs fixing, and some state legislatures have done so.
My problem with this debate, as with so many others we get into here in the U.S., is that we’re going into it with this ridiculous Black and White mentality. If people don’t want secondhand smoke around while they eat or get drunk, that’s perfectly fine. Find some way of encouraging restaurants and bars to either completely separate the smoking sections from the nonsmoking, or to simply go completely nonsmoking.
But when you completely outlaw smoking in public within an entire city or state, you’re saying to an entire group of people, “I don’t give a rat’s ass what you want.” And when that happens, there’s always backlash and bitterness, like in New York right now. Policy works best when it accomodates as many people as possible, not when it marginalizes one side of the debate.
Secondhand smoke is immediately extremely dangerous to certain people. It’s dangerous to more people when they’re repeatedly exposed to it over time. But treating it like mustard gas is a gross overstatement, and is counterproductive to any debate on the subject. There’s a middle ground to be found, and to deny that a compromise would work is closed-minded.
Comment by megalodon — March 1, 2004 @ 7:52 am
I’m pretty sure no study has ever proven that occasional exposure to second hand smoke is really that bad for you. I’m sure breathing the air in denver, LA, houston is worse. I will admit that people like waitresses, stewardesses, etc. who are in smokey enviornments 8-10 hours a day are going to feel the effect. However, I don’t think you should ever ban smoking anywhere. As a bar or restraunt owner it should be my right to allow smoking in my building. Same with an airline. If people truly hate second hand smoke, they won’t travel on the airline or eat in those restraunts/bars. The owners will also find it harder to find employees who wish to work there, and may have to pay more in salaries and benifits. The sword cuts both ways though. Any business can also ban smoking.
Comment by andrew — March 1, 2004 @ 8:26 am
Word. And I’d add harsh perfumes and colognes to that list as well.
I agree, but here’s a question. What would have happened if there weren’t any extra seats and the airline really didn’t have anywhere to move that guy? Would the airline still be punished?
The problem we’re seeing here is that in places that allow smoking, the “non-smoking” sections would be better described as “not quite as smoky”. Not that the frequent alternative of smokers congregating near the door is much better.
Now, I’ll admit that I’m on one extreme of this issue, but I don’t think my position is any more extreme than the “Fuck em’. If they don’t like smoking, they can go somewhere else” argument.
So you’re saying that making public places smoke free accommodates less people than allowing smoking anywhere? It’s not that smokers are bad people, it’s that the majority of people shouldn’t have to breathe smoke because a minority wants to smoke.
Are you kidding? With the current job market, it would take a lot more than smoking to convince somebody that they’re better off not having a job than working around smoke. The bigger point is that business owners aren’t allowed by law to have an unsafe workplace or decide which laws they want to ignore under the argument that employees will voluntarily quit a job that may be hazardous to their health.
Blah, blah, blah. Anyways, my main reason for posting this article is that the whole “second-hand smoke causes cancer” is just one of many reasons why public smoking bans are in the best interests of society.
This has already been the subject of a heated debate here before and the last thing I’m interested in is opening up another can of worms. If you’re interested, check out this post that Brian wrote back in this site’s blogger days and the tense commentary that followed.
Comment by greg — March 1, 2004 @ 12:28 pm
The current job market isn’t really affecting bartenders and waiters so much as it is manufacturing and other occupations. There are plenty of restraunts that would be smoke free (can you imagine a smoking section at chucky cheeses).
So would a ban on alcohol. So is the drug prohibition. So would raising the driving age to 18. Just because something has health benifits doesn’t mean it’s necessairly good for society.
If I want to smoke, that should be my right. If you want to provide me with somewhere I can smoke that is your right. If I don’t want to work in a place that allows smoking, that too is my right. If I as an insurance company want to increase rates for employeers who allow smoking in their business that also should be with in my rights.
Comment by andrew — March 1, 2004 @ 1:13 pm
Although it is true that one can die from second-hand smoke, that example is way out of proportion to the reality of how many people have actually died from seconhand smoke. Anyone who is irritated (from the mildly to the seriously) can point to that one example to hold up their arguement to ban smoking everywhere. I am an ex-smoker and even when I was smoking, I would never have sat in the smoking section, because the smell irritated me. Still does. But I’m not going to point out the one example to guilt-trip anyone else.
Comment by Marcy P — March 1, 2004 @ 1:20 pm
I didn’t say I wanted smoking banned everywhere. I just think it should be banned in public since smoking (unlike drinking) does affect those around you.
Comment by greg — March 1, 2004 @ 1:56 pm
But what is public? Is my restraunt or bar public? Don’t I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? Is the park public? How about on the street or at the bus stop?
Comment by andrew — March 1, 2004 @ 3:33 pm
Yes
No. Just ask Denny’s.
Comment by greg — March 1, 2004 @ 4:06 pm
Technically, restaurants and bars are private establishments, while parks and sidewalks are public places. But I think that’s mostly a matter of semantics.
I think in a situation where the guy’s life is at stake, the airline is obligated to do everything in their power to get this guy as far out of harm’s way as they can; the least they could do would be switch his seat out with someone as far away from the smoking section as possible. I don’t know if that’s their legal obligation, but it seems to me it’s certainly their moral obligation as decent people.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s possible to arrange restaurants and bars into smoking and nonsmoking sections and to have that distinction actually make a difference. As I said earlier, a lot of places haven’t done a satisfactory job of this, but I’ve been places where it’s done successfully. (Having an upstairs smoking section with air filters, for example, works very well.)
That’s the kind of compromise I’m talking about, rather than bringing the hatchet down on the desires of a chunk of your constituency/clientele. I’m not saying the desires of an unhealthy minority should take precedence. I’m saying there are ways of accommodating both groups of people.
Comment by Megalodon — March 1, 2004 @ 4:29 pm
I agree, but to ensure the safety of those who could be exposed to smoke, here’s what would need to be done to ensure non-smoking sections are smoke free :
Of course all this would cost money. Lots of it.
But I haven’t actually heard any smokers advocate this kinda comprimise. I guess that because their ideas of comprimising is to let them do what they want, when they want. If anyone disagrees, call them a fascist (not that I’m accusing any of you of this).
Comment by greg — March 1, 2004 @ 4:58 pm
That’s exactly the kind of compromise I’m suggesting. That’s also basically what the Oklahoma state legislature recommended last year, though they didn’t go into much detail in regards to OSHA.
Comment by Megalodon — March 1, 2004 @ 9:49 pm