Today, we present a guest column from Jacob Miller, CC '11 on smoking policy. Just to offer some brief background, it may be worth noting that the Spectator refused to run the piece, apparently because they disagreed with the author's opinion itself. But Cub Pub is dedicated to the voicing of all opinions, so here's the piece. Find the rest of it after the jump.
Smoking is bad––so says the United States government, so says the American Cancer Association, and––most importantly––so says television. Their information has so thoroughly saturated our society that I cannot imagine that there are many left who do not know that smoking is bad for them. Yet about 1 in 5 Americans are smokers (1). Why, then, do they do it?
Because nicotine is a wonderful drug; it improves memory (2), alertness (3), and concentration (4), ––the literature on the cognitive benefits of nicotine is massive. And unlike some other drugs that similarly sharpen the mind, nicotine doesn’t have many unpleasant side effects.
In fact, nicotine can help combat some of the leading causes of death in the United States. The prevalence of obesity in the United States is around 33% (5)––there are more obese people than smokers. Perhaps they should smoke: one proven way to curb weight gain is smoking. Nicotine is an extremely effective appetite suppressant (6), and it helps to satisfy the cravings and oral fixations that chronic snackers are often unable to overcome. Frankly, I’d rather live in a nation of smokers than in a nation of fat people––smokers are much easier on the eyes than their obese counterparts. If people have to kill themselves, at least they should be attractive while doing it.
Not only can it help us lose weight, but also it can reduce stress; nicotine has a relaxing effect and improves the smoker’s mood (7)(8). We as a nation are incredibly stressed; here at Columbia it’s second nature to us. Stress leads to a variety of physical and psychological problems, including heart disease and depression (9). Although generally not fatal, it shortens our lifespan and lowers our quality of living. As we experience a recession, doubtless our national stress levels will continue to increase. One feasible way to lower them is smoking; with all of the other killers in our society, cigarettes begin to look less and less like the demons they’re made out to be––why not die a bit younger but live a bit happier?
But killers they are. Smoking is unhealthy and leads to lung cancer––the studies are conclusive. However, is it such a bad thing for our society to be younger on average? The government pays massive amounts in benefits to the elderly, and with their increasing longevity, these amounts are not going to go down anytime soon. Moreover––as is well known––the elderly exercise a disproportionate amount of political power in the American democracy. There’s something to be said for a younger society.
Any responsible scientist will admit it’s impossible to get numbers on exactly how unhealthy smoking is––environmental factors greatly affect the chances of getting lung cancer, and they aren’t factored into the mass polls or studies. However, since experts believe that 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women will get cancer during their lifetime (10), with all of the benefits that cigarettes offer, perhaps smokers aren’t as reckless as they’re made out to be. They’re taking a measure of control over their lives––and their deaths. Rather than try to convert or punish them––banning them from smoking indoors, imposing heavy taxes on them––we should just respect their choice and leave them alone.
I’m not advocating that anyone pick up smoking––I’m not even a smoker myself––but I want to question this received idea that smoking is bad. Because they know that voters have no problem making smokers pay more money for their habit, politicians are constantly proposing new taxes on tobacco in order to balance their budgets––look at Governor Paterson’s proposed budget, for example (11). But making the obese pay––say, charging fat people double if they take up more than a single seat on the subway, which I’ve seen on multiple occasions––is unthinkable. Isn’t this hypocrisy?
It’s not strictly apples to apples, since secondhand smoke can be harmful to others in a way that overeating isn’t. However, I do think that we as a society discriminate against smokers, based on this underlying assumption that it’s our responsibility to keep people from smoking. But if it’s our responsibility to keep people from smoking––as everyone seems to agree it is––why don’t we also keep them from eating excessively, or drinking excessively, or working too hard? Smoking is not any more harmful than these other activities, and it even presents benefits that they don’t––smoking can help us to have a happier, thinner, and younger society. McDonald’s can give us none of those.
Nor do I want to advocate discriminating against the overweight; genetics and environmental factors can contribute to obesity, and people have as much right to be fat as they do to light up a cigarette. But if the principle behind penalizing smokers is to protect them from themselves, it seems only right that we also penalize the overweight-by-choice to protect them from themselves. To do otherwise makes no sense.
Smoking is not the worst thing in the world. Discrimination and fascism are much worse.
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/adult_...
(2) Rusted JM, et al, "Facilitation of memory by post-trial administration of nicotine: evidence for attentional explanation," Psychopharmacology, 108(4):452-5, l992
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/77657.stm
(4) Warburton D M, "Nicotine as a cognitive enhancer," Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 16(2): 181-91, Mar l992
(5) http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
(6) http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ans/psychology/health_psychology/nicotine.htm
(7) http://www.helpstartshere.org/Default.aspx?PageID=529
(8) http://www.nida.nih.gov/MOM/TG/momtg-nicotine.html
(9) http://www.lifespan.org/adam/healthillustratedencyclopedia/1/003211.html
(10) http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/intro.pdf
(11) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/12/patersons-budget-...
whoa
here is an argument you don't get all the time. thanks for giving the other side
it's not suprising the spec
it's not suprising the spec didn't run this. it's actually interesting
Second-Hand Obesity?
Second-hand smoke afflicts those who have not chosen to smoke with many of the harms of smoking. This makes smoking a social harm which would warrant state regulation under even the most extreme models of individual liberty, unless you want to promote the unlimited freedom to harm other people. Moreover, smoking is much further from the independent choice you make it out to be. Often smokers begin in adolescence under social influences and before they have been adequately made aware of the risks. Instead of the triumphant rational choice of an individual, the decision to smoke can be just a grudging submission in order to avoid social hardships. These circumstances warrant further state regulation.
re: Second-Hand Obesity?
"These circumstances warrant further state regulation."
Maybe, but I believe the author is referring to the newly proposed CU policy to ban smoking on Morningside Campus. While I have no idea what the author was referring to when he used the word "fascism," I am opposed to the smoking ban because secondhand smoke is not a health concern on campus. Hardly anybody smokes and those who do don't smoke in areas where the smoke is unavoidable. The breeze carries it right away. Besides, the given reasons for the ban are fallacious garbage.
obesity
in any case the author says that "It’s not strictly apples to apples, since secondhand smoke can be harmful to others in a way that overeating isn’t." maybe he doesn't go into it enough, but the author seems aware that it's not a perfect analogy. he is just trying to illustrate the double standards smokers are held to.
i think the commentator above should read the article more closely.
Hi People
Hi People
How are you doing?
everyone who is in favor of
everyone who is in favor of a smoking ban should read this piece. unlike the other idiots who open their mouths on the issue, this guy actually has some evidence. and he's funny.
although he pushes the parallel between smokers and the obese too far, IMO.
This is an interesting one.
This is an interesting one. From my own experience, editors are still interested in good ideas and I haven't noticed rates per word falling. However, one of my main clients has slashed the number of words required, handbags eg: whereas they previously commissioned 800-word pieces, they now want 400. They have also capped mileage, so the rate per mile is the same as before but if the round trip is more than 50 miles, gucci handbags guess what - I lose out. In real terms, therefore, these particular jobs now pay half as much as previously. I've been told the slash in the freelance budget is directly due to the recession, so it is worrying for us freelances. And I guess the recession will give even more scope on forums such as this for idiots to invite us to "contribute" for the pleasure of a byline, prada handbags but don't get me started on that one! Good luck with your piece; should make an interesting read.
Post new comment