Smoking
A Legalized Invasion of the Holy of Holies — the Human Body
Tobacco smoke hung in the air with the droplets of breath from the person walking ahead, filled with a diverse spectrum of microbiome and potential viruses he may be carrying if he is unwell; beyond this obvious fact, the cloud suspended along the path contained an entire bouquet of carcinogenic substances — of the more than seven thousand chemical compounds in tobacco smoke, roughly seventy are capable of causing cancer, including substances such as formaldehyde, benzene, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and other poisons — immediately entering the lungs of anyone fortunate enough to be following the same route as someone unwilling to give up his habit for the sake of others.
Smoking is already, in itself, a destructive habit that seriously damages health. But the issue here is not that a person consciously harms himself by smoking cigarette after cigarette, but that in public spaces he poisons those around him without their consent.
Perhaps we should dig deeper and ask how a society that carefully monitors the protection of human rights and freedoms has normalized smoking, which runs directly against the very values it claims to defend. The picture may become clearer if we list the main forces driving smokers and the defenders of this way of life. Why do people smoke?
Drug dependence is one of the first reasons that comes to mind. Drugs are addictive, and few people are able to overcome the insatiable craving they provoke. But why are cocaine and heroin outlawed while tobacco is fully legalized? The answer lies in cultural aestheticization. Smoking has become a symbol of freedom, a right of choice, and everyone who smokes finds in it some personal outlet or justification. It may be protest or bohemian flair, a rite of passage into adulthood or the pleasure of solitude in clouds of tobacco smoke, or simply a habit that has hardened into routine. Smoking as status or symbol, as self-expression too. It has taken deep root in culture and has been romanticized for many years, both in literature and in film, long presented as an inseparable part of life. Lobbying by tobacco companies should not be dismissed either; no one is capable of walking away from billions in revenue. Age restrictions — not a problem. Fewer cigarettes in a pack — not a problem. Tobacco can be bought as cigarettes, loose by weight, and even in kilogram-sized packages. Futile attempts to change anything in this direction are doomed to fail when enormous profits are involved, and, accordingly, substantial taxes regularly flow into the state treasury. Any restrictions have a symbolic, window-dressing character and are incapable of changing the status quo.
And here the central problem must be named. If personal space is placed at the forefront as one of the fundamental human rights, and violating it is considered an unacceptable transgression, then a paradox emerges. How is an invasion of personal space defined? Someone breaks into another person’s home — this is a violation that is unequivocally treated as a threat to life. Or, to take a less aggressive example, but one that makes the point clear: is any physical contact permissible without a person’s consent? You know the answer. Does a person drinking alcohol pour it down someone else’s throat? Does someone forcibly inject a dose into the vein of a passerby? None of the above can be seen as anything other than an encroachment on personal freedoms and personal space. So why, in that case, does tobacco smoke not fall into the same category — when it penetrates another person’s body, into a place where no one is allowed without consent?
Will anyone apologize for regularly poisoning you and undermining your health? Would those apologies make you feel any better? How many people smoke in the children’s room of their own home? Hardly anyone. So why, then, do they bear no responsibility for forcing children outdoors to breathe tobacco smoke? It happens everywhere — at the bus stop, outside the entrance to an apartment building, at the entrance to a shopping center, near a swimming pool, in a public park, and in recreation areas. Secondhand smoke spares no one from consequence, because there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.
The psychology of the smoker is confined by his need to satisfy an irresistible urge immediately, while his conscience is not troubled by the fact that someone nearby will inhale tobacco smoke and involuntarily smoke along with him. The product of the smoker’s addiction enters the lungs of everyone unfortunate enough to find themselves near him. This looks like nothing other than normalized boorishness, for which one need not justify oneself, let alone bear any responsibility. There are very few everyday open public spaces in the world where a person is protected from someone else’s tobacco smoke. In most cases, one can smoke anywhere and ignore the objections of those who dislike it. Think how many times you have had to slow down or overtake a person exhaling clouds of smoke so your child would not breathe poisonous fumes from a stranger’s mouth. It is like a French kiss — only one happening without your consent.
Modern society takes pride in its achievements, and especially in its tolerance. But freedom of self-expression must not harm other people; otherwise, it is no different from uncontrolled violence or assault. Why are the rights of the smoker placed above the rights of those who refuse to breathe poison into themselves? Addiction does not automatically turn people evil, but they must keep it under control so that it does not affect others or cause harm. No one should have to tolerate health-threatening inconvenience merely because regulatory laws still do not exist.
When you breathe in someone else’s tobacco smoke, remember that the invasion of your body has been legalized by the absence of laws that would protect your health from encroachment.
P.S. My Substack remains free. If you value my essays and analysis and would consider supporting this work if paid subscriptions open in the future, you can pledge your support on Substack. To be clear: no one will be charged unless paid subscriptions are launched. If that ever happens, I will notify readers in advance.
Actually dose matters a lot. The consequence for the type of exposure you describe is nil. The drunk driver on the other hand is hurtling at you in a 5000 pound steel box. You can complain about the smell, but your righteous indignation about a whisper of smoke is misplaced.