Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard doesn’t want you to be able to smoke in public parks, golf courses or at Portland International Raceway. There has even been consideration of a sidewalk smoking ban in Portland. After years of working as a firefighter, Leonard has witnessed the effects and repercussions of lifelong smoking and would like to help prevent them.
No Smoking!
Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard doesn’t want you to be able to smoke in public parks, golf courses or at Portland International Raceway. There has even been consideration of a sidewalk smoking ban in Portland. After years of working as a firefighter, Leonard has witnessed the effects and repercussions of lifelong smoking and would like to help prevent them.
As Randy Leonard and other city commissioners work to widen public smoking bans, these efforts beg the question: Why not ban public smoking altogether?
Many smokers, fully aware of the deadly effects of smoking, argue that it is their right to choose whether or not they smoke. In a sense, they are correct. But when exercising your rights endangers the health of those around you, your argument is nullified. Also, the assertion that we live in a free society is asinine. Consider seatbelt safety laws that require people to wear seatbelts for their own safety. In that case, you no longer have the choice of whether to protect yourself or not. With that in mind, smoking bans seem much more reasonable.
Smoking bans are about protecting the health of non-smokers. Despite some popular belief, secondhand smoke has proven deadly. Secondhand smoke exposure is the direct cause of approximately 3,400 lung-cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 deaths from heart disease in non-smoking Americans each year, according to the American Lung Association. The Environmental Protection Agency has even classified secondhand smoke as a known cause of cancer in humans.
Cigarettes contain, among other harmful chemicals, high levels of nicotine. Not only is nicotine extremely addictive, exposure to nicotine alone can be deadly. In fact, there is enough nicotine in one cigarette?depending on the brand?to kill a human being. However, the majority of nicotine is burned off in the process of smoking. Once used as an insecticide in the United States and elsewhere, nicotine is easily absorbed through the skin and impedes the body’s natural process of removing damaged or dying cells. This process is called apoptosis. Damaged cells can become cancerous, and through inhibiting their removal, nicotine creates an environment within the body favorable to cancer development. One can assert that if the Federal Drug Administration, instead of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, was in control of nicotine, it would certainly be banned due to its severely harmful effects.
Federal and state governments strictly regulate alcohol, restricting when and where it can be consumed. Currently, alcohol consumption is responsible for the deaths of 85,000 Americans each year. Compare that with the number of annual deaths caused by tobacco in the United States-435,000-and you can see the discrepancy in our dangerous substances control laws.
It’s clearly inappropriate and irresponsible for smokers to expose surrounding non-smokers to such health risks, and public smoking bans should be in place. Which brings us back to the question: Why not ban public smoking altogether? Perhaps it is because public opinion may not favor such a forward move by the city, as most are strong advocates of individual rights. But perhaps there is another thing to consider.
The Oregon cigarette tax may be the X-factor. In 2000, Oregon netted over $166 million in cigarette-tax revenues alone. And in October 2006, Gov. Ted Kulongoski proposed a cigarette-tax increase of 85 cents per pack, which would generate $150 million to $170 million in revenue. This proposed cigarette-tax increase was aimed at expanding the Oregon Health Plan.
Although Portland city commissioners may be very health conscious, they are also aware of the money the state brings in through cigarette sales. And a citywide ban of public smoking could potentially lower cigarette sales.
Regardless of revenues, public smoking should be banned in Portland. If public health is truly a concern of the city, our public leaders will cease the incremental and time-wasting bans and outlaw public smoking altogether. It is unfair for any Portlander to be exposed to increased and severe health risks just because someone else has a chemical dependency.
