Jenna Patterson – 12/10/06

This page was last updated on December 11, 2006.

Smokers violate others’ rights; Jenna Patterson; Beaver County Times; December 10, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“I am writing in response to Jack Krchmar’s Tuesday letter, ‘Smokers’ rights violated.’

“Krchmar claimed that smoking bans violate the rights of smokers, but that is certainly not the case. Look at the big picture and realize that the goal of a smoke-free state is to protect the rights of nonsmokers. The goal is not to violate the rights of those who voluntarily inhale more than 40 known carcinogens.

“Krchmar also claimed that voters would never choose to live in a smoke-free state, but I beg to differ. While my home is in Pennsylvania, I currently attend college in Ohio, and in the Nov. 7 general election, an estimated 58 percent of Ohio voters went to the polls and voted in favor of State Issue 5 - ‘A Smoke-Free Ohio.’

“The majority of our neighbors to the west support a public smoking ban, and who’s to say that Pennsylvanians would be any different?

“I am not a smoker, and my decision to not smoke in front of you has no detrimental effects on your health. However, the same cannot be said if you were to light up in front of me.

“Understand that smokers violate the rights and jeopardize the health of nonsmokers, not the other way around.”

[RWC] No, Ms. Patterson, smokers do not violate your rights. I’ve read both the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions and neither grants either smoker or non-smoker rights.

The issue is property rights and the ability of people to choose where they work, do business, eat, et cetera. No one forces an individual to work, eat, et cetera on private property where the owner permits smoking.

I wonder what Ms. Patterson’s position is on alcohol consumption. I ask because Ms. Patterson specifically mentioned “the health of nonsmokers.” If Ms. Patterson doesn’t support prohibition of alcohol consumption, her smoking ban support is logically inconsistent.

Here’s why.

I can avoid so-called secondhand smoke simply by not working in or patronizing businesses that permit smoking. Therefore, my health as related to secondhand smoke is completely under my control.

That’s not the case when it comes to alcohol consumption by others.

When a drinker leaves a bar or restaurant, his driving is impaired by his alcohol consumption whether or not he meets the legal definition (0.08% blood alcohol content) of drunk. When that guy is out on the road, I have no way to avoid him because there’s no way to identify an alcohol impaired driver unless he is so drunk his car is weaving around. By that time, it may be too late.

Here are some facts published by the Centers for Disease Control.

· Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006).

· During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

· In 2005, nearly 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice 2005). That’s less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol–impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).

· More than half of the 414 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 were riding with the drinking driver (NHTSA 2006).

· In 2005, 48 children age 14 years and younger who were killed as pedestrians or pedalcyclists were struck by impaired drivers (NHTSA 2006).

Are the lives of victims of alcohol-impaired drivers any less valuable than those of alleged victims of secondhand smoke?

Don’t get me wrong. I no more support prohibition of alcohol consumption than I do prohibition of smoking on private property. My point was to show how it’s illogical to support a smoking ban based on “the health of nonsmokers” and not support a ban on alcohol consumption based on the health of nondrinkers.