Smoking should be banned in all restaurants and bars in the city of Boston to ensure the freedom of the entire public, Boston University professor Michael Siegel said in a lecture yesterday.
Siegel, an associate professor of social and behavioral sciences in the Boston University School of Public Health, gave his lecture as part of the Fall 2002 Food For Thought luncheon series.
The fight to prohibit smokers from lighting up in public areas has often been called the war on freedom, although Siegel said he feels these restrictions are necessary for everyone’s freedom.
‘We have to balance the public’s health and civil liberties,’ he said. ‘We pretty much know how bad smoking is, but people aren’t aware of how bad second-hand smoking is.’
Siegel pointed out the importance of making the decision to ban smoking as detrimental to basic fundamental values and civil liberties. He said that the population incurs more harm by not banning smoking.
‘This is not a balancing act because protecting the public’s health is nothing other than ensuring people’s public liberties,’ Siegel said. ‘Opponents are essentially trying to deny citizens in the city of the most basic freedom, the freedom to make a living.’
Siegel said his job is to protect basic civil liberties, and banning smoking protects those liberties.
‘We have to allow people to make bad choices. There’s a difference between making a choice that only affects yourself and between making a choice affecting someone else,’ he said. ‘We draw the line when that behavior starts to infringe on other people. We’re trying to protect people from other people’s behavior.’
Siegel pointed out the upcoming decision to be made by the Boston Public Health Committee on a possible regulation that would restrict smoking from all bars and restaurants in Boston. This decision would override a 1998 regulation calling for smoking sections in such establishments to be at least six feet away from non-smoking areas, he said.
Siegel said there were three major myths associated with smoking in the United States and offered facts to refute those myths.
Siegel said one of the three myths stated that only 25 percent of the population smokes cigarettes. Siegel stated everyone smokes in the United States because of the prevalence of secondhand smoke.
‘There is not a nonsmoker in the United States,’ he said. ‘Everyone breathes in tobacco smoke.’
Siegel pointed out the intense amount of secondhand smoke that is consumed by nonsmokers each day.
‘All nonsmokers inhale the equivalent of actively smoking one to three cigarettes per day,’ he said. ‘The only difference is that some choose to put a burning cigarette in their mouth.’
Another common myth deals with the idea of the main cause of second-hand smoke coming from the home of a smoker, Siegel said. He disproved this idea, utilizing graphs showing that the levels of smoke were higher in numerous places outside of the home.
‘Even if [one] lives with a smoker, the level of nicotine is higher in a restaurant,’ he said.
Siegel pointed out that the levels of nicotine are almost twice as high in restaurants as in the homes of smokers.
‘If you want to do anything fun in your life, you cannot make a choice not to smoke,’ Siegel said. ‘The decision has already been made for you.’
High rates of nicotine exposure in bars failed to compare to the rates of numerous places of recreation and entertainment. Two hours spent in a bingo parlor provide the same amount of exposure to nicotine as eight hours in a bar, Siegel said. Employees of these establishments often face high amounts of exposure to secondhand smoke.
‘Being a nonsmoker but happening to work in a smoking environment is just as bad,’ Siegel said. ‘There is very little difference in people who work where smoking is allowed and people who actually smoke.’
After being asked whether the level of intervention into private businesses by the government was necessary, Siegel responded by agreeing with such involvement.
‘In an ideal world you wouldn’t need the regulation,’ he said. ‘But we don’t live in an ideal world. We need to have some level of government intervention.’
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
