Steve Rodich – 9/9/07

This page was last updated on September 19, 2007.

Ills of second-hand smoke; Steve Rodich; Beaver County Times; September 9, 2007.

To begin, I need to disclose I’ve always been a non-smoker, find tobacco smoke objectionable, and don’t permit smoking in either my home or car.

This is at least the fourth letter – and the third since late June – from Mr. Rodich supporting a smoking ban on private property. Mr. Rodich’s previous letters are here, here, and here (I didn’t critique this letter.).

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The following, indisputable facts should be the primary consideration by state lawmakers when they convene in Harrisburg and resume deliberation of the Clean Indoor Air Act.

“Secondhand smoke:

· Causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections and asthma.

· Contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

· Causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in United States each year.

· Is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome deaths each year.

· May cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear and aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1 million children with asthma.

· According to the Surgeon General, short exposure to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.

· There are 4,000 chemicals in tobacco, and at least 40 of them are known carcinogens.

[RWC] The above “indisputable facts,” even if true, are irrelevant. Why? Because we as individuals can already choose not to put ourselves in a position to breathe second-hand smoke.

“During the debates on this bill in July, lawmakers opposed to the bill or supportive of amendments to water it down used excuses like, we need to be concerned about our business constituents, we need to preserve the rights of constituents who smoke, we need to be concerned about the tax revenue we would lose, we must weigh public health versus government’s role in mandating how private businesses run their businesses, and - the best one - we need to keep "big brother" out of businesses.

“These concerns are legitimate. However, the real issue and all encompassing reason for this bill is public health and welfare.

“Lawmakers cannot put the rights of business ahead of the health of workers and patrons. They cannot give smokers rights that infringe on the health of others.

“Money and taxes cannot be a priority over public health and welfare.”

[RWC] I believe smoking bans on private property are every bit as bad for private property rights and freedom as was the 2005 Supreme Court ruling (Kelo v. New London) that taking private property (eminent domain) and giving it to another private citizen is OK when it results in increased tax receipts.

Why not let we the people decide the issue via freedom of choice in the marketplace? If eliminating smoking on private property is truly the will of the people, we’ll stop patronizing and seeking employment at businesses that don’t provide reasonable accommodations for non-smokers. Businesses, clubs, etc. that don’t adapt will go under.

Ban proponents apparently assume we the people aren’t astute enough to make “proper” choices. What’s the next choice we won’t be smart enough to make on our own?