Improving Our Health Ain't Always Rocket Science
Posted By: Steve Kutheis 
Date Posted: September 22nd, 2009 Category: Health Literacy
Sometimes big improvements can be made in reducing health problems by making the right decisions. Take smoking in public places, for instance. Two recent studies suggest that communities that pass laws to curb secondhand smoke get a big payoff – a drop in heart attacks.
It seems so simple – ban smoking in all public places (yes, even in bars, restaurants, casinos) and you have less heart attacks. Yet this topic continues to be a hotly contested and emotional debate in many cities.
You can read the article on CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/moh.healthmag.smoking.heart/
Comment By: Tim Elli
Date & Time: September 23, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I think this issue is simple, too. I am just on the other side of the fence. The government cannot use an "ends justify the means" argument when proposing laws. To illustrate my point:
We all would like to eliminate deaths and injuries due to car accidents. An easy way to achieve this goal would be to ban driving. Isn't trading in a little freedom worth the lives saved?
Comment By: Brad Pluhar
Date & Time: September 24, 2009 at 10:23 am
It seems to make sense to limit smoking and preventing second hand smoke. I see your point Tim but the analogy is off base. Driving, or any form of transportation, in a way is a necessity. Smoking however is not. You are missing the whole element of what is better for the greater good.
Comment By: Tim Elli
Date & Time: September 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm
There are many people who do not own cars that would disagree with your deeming driving necessary, Brad. Fortunately for Americans, governance is not determined by what one group believes is a "necessity" or for the "greater good". If it were, the Government would certainly mandate that all Americans take vitamins and power walk. Governance is determined by our Constitution. For a government (Federal, State or Local) to ban a legal activity because of popular opinion is unconstitutional. The "greater good" argument dismisses the rights of the minority.
I can assure you that if I die of lung cancer, there will be no way to determine whether it was from second had smoke, auto exhaust or toner ink fumes. It is within my power to limit my exposure to second hand smoke so that its toxicity would most likely be no more harmful than other unavoidable toxins. I choose to work, dine, live, etc. almost completely smoke free. I guess you can say that I have banned tobacco smoke from my life, and I did not need the government to do it for me! This is the free market at work.
Comment By: Brad Pluhar
Date & Time: September 25, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Point taken. Although, those people that don't own cars still have someone driving them whether it be car pool, train, bus, whatever. There is a very small population that bike and I 've rarely heard of people walking to work. <BR><BR>I may be biased in this instance cause I really don't have sympathy for the smoking population so I don't care whether or not someone feels it's constitutional or not. We could just make it illegal and then constitutional is a non issue. Just saying, I'm not really for putting tobacco on the illegal substance list. And yes a mandate or at least creating incentives to eat healthier and exercise would be a good thing, but that's a whole other issue.