Just in case smoking hasn’t killed you and everyone you love yet, there is some new troubling news. Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley labs have identified what they call “thirdhand smoke.” In a nutshell, smoking deposits a fine layer of nicotine on any nearby surfaces, including clothes, carpets and furniture. Nitrous acid is an indoor air pollutant created by gas appliances, gas engines and cigarette smoke. When mixed with nicotine, a carcinogen, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are created. As a reference, TSNAs have been identified as being carcinogens since 1989 by the surgeon general. Yet we still allow people to smoke near us? Apparently it’s not the science being disputed, but more subjective reasons, which I plan on tackling.
Probably the biggest argument is “it’s my body, I do what I want!” I agree with this, on the surface. If someone wants to do something to his or her body, it’s his or her right! But smokers overstep their boundaries and encroach upon mine. Smokers don’t smoke in hazmat suits that contain their own circulating air supply — they smoke in my environment. Sure, smoke dissipates, and I can just hold my breath until my brain is oxygen starved, but now I have thirdhand smoke to worry about.
Waiting at the bus stop? Cancer. Sitting on the bus? Probably cancer. Hanging out with a friend that smells like smoke? Cancer.
But somehow, this isn’t compelling enough — people still smoke when walking to class, beside other non-smokers. So I’d like to compare smokers to a suicide bomber. Drastic? Maybe not. If smokers want to argue it’s their bodies — so their right — I’ll argue that suicide bombers have the same constitutional rights. It’s their bodies, why can’t they strap explosives to themselves? So what if it kills innocent bystanders; how is smoking any different? Argue with how insane this sounds, but analyze the situation and realize that the example is not as crazy as it sounds.
Maybe people argue that I will never know how hard it is to quit smoking, which is right; I’ve never smoked, so I will never need to quit. But why should addiction be a reason to keep something legal? It’s hard to quit LSD — I’ve heard — and even harder to kick heroine and methadone. Yet abuse of these drugs is still illegal, and they don’t even directly kill those around the users. Now for the drastic approach: repeat offenders, such as rapists, murderers and even simple thieves, must find their illegal activities addictive. But during their trials, there is never a mention of how hard it is to quit, and how we should just repeal someone else’s right to life in favor of their addiction. Why let smokers kill us, just because it’s really hard for them to stop? Seems like a crazy reason to me.
The only other argument I can think of that allows people to smoke is that our state was built on tobacco. Fair enough. We’ve got tradition and people’s jobs at stake. But wasn’t a good share of the country’s early economy built on slavery?
In the interest of being fair, let’s just bring slavery back. Oh, is that not cool — forcing things on people against their will, just for the sake of tradition? Then don’t force your cancer on me, just because it’s “tradition.”
Hopefully these insane comparisons have at least made smokers and proponents of their rights to smoke think a little before being overcome by rage. We need to stop making excuses for the cold hard fact that every day we find more ways that a smoker’s inconsideration is killing us and our loved ones. I know that the outlaw of smoking is a long ways away, but let’s at least ban it in all public places, before we take smoking parents for child abuse.
