So What If Hitler Was an Anti-Smoker?
Jacob Sullum | December 17, 2004, 9:39am
In a brief BMJ article, George Davey Smith describes Nazi Germany's pioneering campaigns against smoking, drinking, overeating, and other unhealthy habits. (Robert N. Proctor's 1999 book The Nazi War on Cancer explores this topic in more detail.) "It may seem paradoxical that the robust identification of one of the most important environmental causes of disease of the 20th century occurred in a totalitarian state," Smith writes, referring to Nazi research on the link between smoking and lung cancer.
In fact, the Nazis' focus on the threats that risky habits pose to "public health" makes perfect sense in light of their collectivist ideology. "Brother national socialist," said one bit of Nazi propaganda, "do you know that your Führer is against smoking and thinks that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and missions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"
Smith adds: "Clearly there were considerable links between the promotion of particular lifestyles and the racial hygiene movement. Tobacco and alcohol were seen as 'genetic poisons,' leading to degeneration of the German people."
The point, I hasten to add, is not that today's "public health" paternalists are Nazis. I am not suggesting that everyone who hates smoking is just like Hitler. But there is an unmistakable totalitarian logic to the notion that the government has a responsibility to promote "public health" by preventing us from engaging in activities that might lead to disease or injury. The implication is that we all have a duty to the collective to be as healthy as we can be, an idea the Nazis embraced but one that Americans ought to find troubling.
[Thanks to Jeff Schaler for the link.]
gaius marius | December 17, 2004, 2:01pm | #
By snake's reasoning, my right to swing my fist ends not at your nose. It ends when I hit your nose HARD ENOUGH to cause you physical harm, rather than simply being a nuisance. Got it.
i'll quote mr joe, but could use any of several quotes to illustrate how the ability to compromise even slightly for your fellow man has died in the west. a more arrogant and self-involved culture you'll rarely see.
"most of us don't like smoke; therefore, smoke should be outlawed." the idea that there should be a limit on this prerogative -- a constitution, a demostration of harm, or even common sense -- is now largely absent.
whereas once the standard for legislation was real, significant and demonstrable social harm -- a standard secondhand smoke can only be imagined to meet, unlike punching people in the nose -- this has steadily deteriorated under the influence of emancipation in democracies. truly, limitation and modesty of action in general has conceded to bluster and highhandedness as individuals, increasingly convinced of their total primacy, no longer see a need to acquiesce to anything inconvenient.
so any inconvenience caused by any action has now become pretext for the majoritarians (or even loud, well-financed minorities) to manipulate the state into persecution, replete with the attendant propaganda.
from that, it is a small step to persecuting types on whom certain actions are implied -- say, muslims.
So Jews, by being Jews, impose on the Aryans around them in the same manner as a guy blowing smoke in the direction of my 2 year old daughter?
it has to be said, mr joe: the amount of harm caused an aryan by the existence of a jew is approximately equivalent to the harm caused your daughter by a guy smoking at the table next to you.
unfortunately, the level of ability to compromise in both situations is growing similar as well.
jeff | December 17, 2004, 2:31pm | #
What we have here is a failure of critical thinking. The failure is in analyzing who does what.
Allow me to take you through it step by step.
At some point in time a business is closed. Any business, not just bars. Even stores open 24 hours a day were closed before their first day of business.
Then the owner (or representative) opens the business. Anyone who enters after that does so voluntarily and, more importantly, with the owners permission. The terms involved in obtaining permission are sometimes clearly posted (as in "no shirt ....) and sometimes by social understanding ("no swinging machetes").
At some point "joe", a prospective customer, is outside the business. Does he enter or not? Here is where the critical thinking breaks down. The answer depends only on "joe". Regardless of any preconceived notions of right and wrong, regardless of any validity of health studies, regardless of any laws, "joe" is the only one with the ability to choose.
If "joe" (a non-smoker) enters a building containing smoke, then any danger,discomfort,or nuisance, is the result of his own action.
If "joe" (a smoker) enters a building where the owner does not permit smoking, then any discomfort he feels is the result of his own action.
What is really going on (regardless of any health claim) with respect to a smoking ban is this: "joe" (the anti-smoker) finds himself outside a business he would like to enter were it not for the second-hand smoke, but he doesn't want to pursue peaceful means to persuade the owner to change his terms of permission. That's too much trouble. It's far easier to get the government to force the owner to change.
Now, to those who support the smoking ban, I ask: What makes you think the force of government will never turn against you?
Clue Less | December 17, 2004, 3:13pm | #
Couple of points:
1. "sin taxes" don't raise money to take care
of sick smokers, drinkers, etc.. That money is
instead put in a general fund and essentially
makes up for shortfalls in other tax collections.
My main complaint with "sin taxes" is they are
implmented by politicans who don't have enough
spine to raise income, property, etc. taxes.
2. I'll stand up for a ban on smoking in all
public places as long as there is also a ban
on children in public. I am tired of having
crying brats ruin otherwise relaxing dinners,
movies, plane rides, etc..
3. Do smokers, drinkers, etc. really use much
more health care? If they die young how does
their final bill compare with non-sinners who
potentialy are a burden on society into their
80's and 90's? Last time I checked a nursing
home costs around $3k a month, and in many
cases the bill is paid by the government.
4. Where I live 80-90% resturants, bars, etc. are
smoke free. It amazes me when non-smokers walk
past 8 or 9 smoke free establishments and
straight into the 1 or 2 places where smoking is
allowed, and then proceed to complain. What is
wrong with these people? Are they stupid or just
bull headed?
5. What is it about the last smoking
bar in a neighborhood that makes it the place
to be? If the smokers are forced out will the bar
be the same or will it become just another
overpriced coffee shop?
6. Non smokers tend to complain about their
insurance going up because of smokers. The last
time I heard this was from a woman who has
for the last 10-20 years received expensive
treatment for a cronic life threatening illness.
Her treatment was covered first by government
programs and later when she married by her
husband's insurance plan. Why does society have
to pay to keep her alive so she can bitch
about other people raising "her" costs?
7. Where I work most sick days are taken by
people with young kids. In fact most of my
employers insurance costs are driven by
children of current employees and people who
have retired from the company with benefits. I
think it is wrong I have to pay higher insurance
rates and pick up the slack at work because
so many of my coworkers have snot-nosed kids.
8. My guess is having a child "costs" society
more than smoking. Has anyone tallied all the
costs parents pass on to society? Why arn't
parents taxed more heavily to offset these costs?
If fact why are single people taxed to pay
for schools they don't use? Who pays for the
jails when parents don't parent?
jeff | December 17, 2004, 3:27pm | #
"jeff, the concept of "place of public accommodation" must be a real bitch for your way of thinking."
joe, the concept of "place of private accomodataion" must be a real bitch for your way of thinking.
Again, the lack of critical thinking. It is not your place, nor is it mine, to tell the owner of any business what to do.
Whether a "smoking is more like spitting in someone's food" is a true statement or not is irrelevant.
What is relevant is understanding who is doing what. Note that in my previous post the subject could just have easily been wearing perfume, having a cold, or singing loudly in a bookstore.
What is relevant is the permission of the owner.
And what those who don't like the terms of permission are willing to do to get their way.
Are they willing to use peaceful persuasion or will they resort to the threat of violence?
You can dress it up anyway you want, but when you cut to the chase, government works by the threat of violence. If you disagree with them, you get hurt. End of story.
On the other hand peaceful, civilized, people allow those who disagree with them to go their own way.
You want a smoke free bar? You want loud singing in a bookstore? I don't want either of those, but I WILL NOT try to stop anyone from trying to obtain them peacefully. And I WILL try to stop anyone from prohibiting others from peaceably getting what they want.
Brendan Perez | December 17, 2004, 3:32pm | #
Give me a break Guav.
You're not forced to go into a bar or any other privately owned business. If you don't like the smoke, you can choose to go to a bar or establishment that doesn't allow smoking-it's really quite simple.
There are people who have problems, either aesthetic or medical, with colognes and perfumes, strobe lights, and even artificially generated fog. The easiest solution for those people would be to stay out of nightclubs that have those undesireable things and/or find one that doesn't.
It's an inappropriate use of government authority/force to mandate that all privately owned businesses cater to your requirements, esp. when you don't have to go there.
I don't care for loud music, in fact I could even say that it's a potential health problem. My solution isn't to go to the nearest lawmaker and demand that all businesses keep it down. No, I simply find one whose noise level (and genre) is in line with my tastes.
If I had kids and it affected them, I wouldn't take them threre anymore.
The Excalibur Casino in Las Vegas has a resturaunt/dining experience where you eat and guys dressed up in medieval garb ride around on horses. Some people have allergies that could be inflamed by the dirt or horse.
The solution? A simple posted warning that tells you that there are live animals and dust. People with allergies to these things should stay away.
I suppose that the horses and dirt should be done away with lest someone and/or their 2 year old be "forced" to inhale horse dander and dust, right?
Brendan Perez | December 17, 2004, 4:01pm | #
What's intersting about the LV casino bars is that, unless there's an ordinance I'm not aware of, the ventilation systems in them are a completely voluntary undertaking.
No compulsion required.
Around here (LV) we get these signs and radio ads that tell us that 60,85, etc. (a large majority) of adults in Clark County/Las Vegas support a complete ban on smoking in resturaunts and bars.
If that were true and the proportion of people who support these bans make up the same proportion of people who frequent these places, it would mean that business owners have been directly offending and acting against a large portion of their customers with apparently no ill effects.
It's possible that the anti-smoking customers just don't bother voicing their complaints to the business owners, in which case they have no one to blame but themselves. OTOH, they seem to have no problem skipping the business owner and voicing their complaint to their elected officials.
If these same anti-smoking people don't make up the same percentage of customers in these businesses, then it would seem that they're outsiders who feel no direct effects on themselves and are just trying to tell others what to do.
I also have to wonder why, if an overwhelming majority of people support smokefree whatevers, there aren't smokefree whatevers aplenty. I would even imagine that the ratio of smoking/smokefree businesses should be somewhat close to the ratio of people who supposedly support smoking/smokefree places.
In the end, I believe that many of the people who support smoking bans in bars, nightclubs, etc. don't actually frequent them and never will. Businnes owners probably feel the same way, as I can't think of any other explanation for why they haven't seen fit to convert their bars, nightlcubs, and resturaunts to smokefree venues en masse.
Brendan Perez | December 17, 2004, 4:23pm | #
"By comparison, smokers are asserting a positive right, the right to do something to another person - I have the right to make you breathe my smoke. I have the right to alter your body chemistry. I have the right to make you sick. No, actually, you don't. The right to do something to someone else's body without their permission is very, very closely circumscribed in our society. You have to show a very, very compelling need, such as defense of human life. "I'm having a nic fit" doesn't cut it."
No. Smokers are asserting that they have the right to smoke in an environment where the owner allows it. They're further asserting that if you don't want your body chemistry altered, than you're free to go to a place where that type of behavior isn't allowed.
If I went to a place that required all people coming in the door to have their face painted or arm tattooed (both of which are body alterations)-or even hand stamped, I could either choose to enter and be subjected to the face painting/tatooing/stamping, or NOT. I'm not "forced" to accept these things, I can always go to a place that doesn't require "body alteration".
The fact that it's posted or directly made a requirement that I face some sort of body alteration as a condition of entry is immaterial. Anyone who knows what smoking is and/or that they don't like it knows that bars and nightclubs allow it.
I would defy anyone to show me someone who goes to bars/nightclubs, doesn't like cigarette smoke, yet is completely oblivious to the fact that smoking may actually go on in there.
It's also assumed that if a resturaunt asks "smoking or non", they allow smoking. I can choose to try out their version of non-smoking or go somewhere else.
No resturaunt I've ever been to that allowed smoking has ever failed to ask that question.
The Obvious Schoolmarm | December 17, 2004, 4:25pm | #
In order to live at all every individual has to give up some 'rights' s/he could conceivably attempt to retain. The right to die, if nothing else.
In order to live in company with others, we have to go even further, and give up many 'rights'. The right to swing the arm short of the nose of another is the old example.
We can all agree, I think, that no right can absolutely trump all other rights all the time in every situation. Sooner or later there has to be some kind of compromise.
If we do this *voluntarily*, we could probably agree to call it maturity, wisdom, common sense, or some other agreeable thing.
If we are *compelled* to give up these rights, that rankles.
And it should, largely because of the difficulty in finding any reliable someones to do the compelling. We understandably are suspicious of their motives, tables of values, etc.
So we all find ourselves not wanting lung cancer, but some of us would really like to inhale tobacco (or other) smoke.
Those who blow smoke in other's breathing air and say "it's my right" are within their rights.
Those who compel others to refrain from blowing smoke into their breathing air are within their rights.
Oh no! Rights clash! Who trumps who? Depends, as it usually does, on your philosophy going in.
I suggest that arguing at the 2nd storey level of smoke, or machetes, or (God forgive the human race) genocide machines is not going to bear much fruit if we start our disagreement in the foundation of rights versus privileges, for example.
Ken Shultz | December 18, 2004, 10:23pm | #
I remember the bit, vaguely, in Adam Smith where he gives the example of a man walking out his front door when a cinder from his neighbor's chimney lands on his newly cleaned shirt. There are valid, libertarian even, arguments on both sides of the queston of who should pay for the cleaning bill. We could legally hold the neighbor responsible for the cleaning bill on the theory that the neighbor clearly harmed our man's property. On the other hand, we could tell the man that he assumed the risk of getting his shirt soiled with soot by walking out his front door; it's simply the cost of a civil society and the freedom people have to burn logs in their homes.
Either way, this is a legitimate question for local government.
Where we go astray is in tryin' to pass laws that restrict what other people can do with their own property. For instance, here in California, we've taken to prohibiting restaurant owners from deciding whether or not they want to allow a smoking section. To me, this seems like the equivalent of the government in Adam Smith's day making a law to prohibit people from burning anything in their fireplaces in order to stop cinders from coming out of their chimneys. If a smoker were to strap someone down and blow smoke in a victim's face until cancer set in, well I think that would be a clear cut case, but in a civil society, people have to take responsibility for the choices they make.
Some people choose to live in the country for their health, and some people choose to live in Los Angeles and breathe the air. California Pizza Kitchen won't let people smoke on their patio, but the Red Robin across the street lets people smoke there. Some people go to California Pizza Kitchen specifically because they don't let people smoke on the patio, and I know smokers who won't go to or order from a California Pizza Kitchen because of their no smoking policy. Some non-smokers go to the Red Robin and sit on the patio because they like the food and they don't mind the smoke.
So I don't see any need for a law protecting people from second-hand smoke. Maybe there should be a law requiring employers to inform prospective employees that they allow smoking on the premises and that there are risks associated with second hand smoke, and maybe there should be a law requiring restaurant owners to warn the public that smoking is allowed on the premises, but I don't see the rationale for a law prohibiting people from allowing smoking on their own property.
...maybe there should be a law protecting the right of property owners to determine the smoking policy on their own property.
Pogo | December 20, 2004, 7:55am | #
In order to reduce healthcare spending, federal, state and local governments are increasing controls over what were formerly personal health choices. In the past, "public health" referred primarily to communicable diseases. However, when taxes are paying everyone's health bills, private behaviors such as smoking, overeating and using alcohol become quite arguably everybody's business.
Senator
Hillary Clinton recently expanded on this theme by introducing the concept of
"our collective health". Citing productivity losses, health expenses and national security, she endorses legislation and national policy governing social and environmental factors to design neighborhoods and schools,
"control dangerous behaviors", and implement
"required responsibility" for individual health concerns. (Clinton H., Now Can We Talk About Health Care?; New York Times Magazine April 18, 2004)
If it is the duty of the government to prevent people from harming the body by what is ingested (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, high fat content), surely there can be no objection to the state limiting those activities that might also result in harm and public expense. Riding a motorcycle, skiing and rock climbing and other high-risk activities become fair game. Further, if the government demands the right to determine what the human body can or cannot consume, there is no good reason to limit its interest in the effects of media on behavior and the human mind. In order to reduce health costs and prevent harm to society, preventing people from reading bad books or advertisements, listening to bad music or speeches and watching bad TV shows or movies should quite reasonably fall under the purview of the state.
Even discussing forbidden behaviors could be forbidden, not unlike legislation in Canada regarding "hate speech" which exposes the increasing trend toward censorship for "expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper". However, because freedom really means the freedom to make mistakes, this kind of society is no longer a democracy by any means, and no longer free, except free to obey. [hat tip to Mises]
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
