Paternalism’s Unending Reach
Saving a person’s life is a big deal. Saving 577 such lives is damn near miraculous. And if yesterday’s Department of Public Health study is right, that’s how many people, on average, are saved from fatal heart attacks statewide by so-called “smoke-free workplace laws” (i.e. smoking bans).
But as Joe Keohane wrote this month, puritanical laws are never without their drawbacks. As with many such resounding policy victories, the risk now—especially in our paternalistic commonwealth—is that those in authority will push the supposed lessons too far.
Consider that the Globe’s story on this issue notes, “[t]he study…appears destined to bolster the case of Boston health authorities who have already given preliminary approval to a sweeping strengthening of their tobacco control laws.” Those new rules include prohibitions against tobacco sales in pharmacies and near universities and the elimination of cigar bars in the city.
How does the success of one ban lead to the need to implement further restrictions? Whereas the statewide smoking ban affected just about everyone, these new regulations would be nothing more than aggravation for those already committed to the use of tobacco products.
We asked Dr. Michael Siegel, an expert on tobacco policy at the Boston School of Public Health (who hailed the DPH report), what to expect from forbidding tobacco sales in drug stores or near universities.
“The only thing that regulation will do is to shift the sources of cigarettes,” he says. “I think [these sales restrictions] will have no effect on public health.”
As for forcing cigar bars to close, Siegel foresees a health benefit only for those who work in them. In which case, the law isn’t protecting helpless employees; it’s taking away their jobs. If that’s a reason to close these cigar bars down, our next move should be to forbid the overweight from working at McDonald’s. Or exclude the power-mad from running for political office.
—CONOR O’TOOLE
