No Smoke-screened Tyranny of the Majority

In an article which appeared on the front page of The Crimson on November 6, Joshua B. Leib says about the passage of Question One, "It all has to do with somebody's ideals and it makes me really angry. "The Crimson writes, "Leib said that Question One was an imposition of the majority's values on the minority."

But more than a question of values, this is a question of rights. In a democracy, we must be careful to protect the rights of the minority while fulfilling the wishes of the majority. But whose rights are truly being violated here?

According to the American Cancer Society (who cite the Massachusetts Bureau of Health Statistics), smoking costs taxpayers in Massachusetts $1.5 billion each year--for medical costs and lost productivity due to tobacco-related illnesses. The majority is thus paying for the effects of the smoking engaged in by the minority. Does the majority not then have the right to attempt to curtail this activity?

In addition, the dangers of inhaling second-hand smoke are widely known, and evidence of this continues to surface in research. Though this is less and less of a problem since smoking is becoming more widely prohibited in public-type spaces, it is still definitely a violation of non-smoker's rights to have to breathe in others' smoke, and any reduction in the number of smokers will make a difference since it is not prohibited everywhere.

For example, last spring, I attended the Adams House Waltz, paying full price for my ticket and expecting to have a good time. This was unfortunately made impossible, due not to bad planning by the waltz committee or a bad experience with my date. Rather, it was the high number of smokers, both in the refreshment area and on the floor, who made it very difficult for my date and me to enjoy ourselves, as he was very smoke-sensitive and we were prevented from spending much time dancing, and indeed left early.

I understand that people may see smoking as a social activity and are reluctant to prohibit it at dances, but those who cannot tolerate smoke are prevented from participating through no fault of their own, Is this fair?

If smoking continues to be permitted at house-wide and campus-wide social events, then perhaps a decrease in the number of Question One will at least make the situation little more tolerable, though I fear that Harvard smokers will not be affected by the increase in tax.

I must add that I am astounded by the high number of intelligent people here at Harvard who smoke. Tobacco-related diseases kill many more Americans in a year that do AIDS, suicide, homicide, fires, car accidents, heroin, cocaine and alcohol combined, according to the American Cancer Society. If you sing, smoking is detrimental to your voice; if you are on the Pill, smoking is dangerous and stupid. It is in all of our best interests, smokers and non-smokers alike, for people not to smoke.

Smoking is everyone's problem. I simply do not see smokers as the oppressed minority, as Leib seems to, for smokers infringe upon non-smokers' rights all the time. I heartily applaud the passage of Question One. Amy M. Shimbo '95