About 15 years ago, while I was chairman of the Northampton Board of Health, the issue of tobacco smoking came up in the city. At that time, two local entrepreneurs proposed to open a smoking lounge downtown. Initially, members of the board took it as our role to protect the non-participating public from the noxious effects of cigarette smoke. We made sure that the planned business installed stringent air handling systems to prevent spaces outside from exposure to smoke. We required the posting of warning signs within the lounge relative to the health risks of cigarette smoke. We did not think that it was within our jurisdiction to dictate the personal choices of individuals who would opt to frequent a smoking lounge.
The board then held a public session for comment. The participants at that hearing fundamentally split 50/50 in support and opposition of allowing such an establishment in Northampton. The generally older segment in the audience was in stiff opposition to allowing the smoking lounge within the city. As expected, the argument was relative to the significant health risks associated with cigarette smoking. On the other hand, the younger half of the audience was fully in support of allowing this business in Northampton, as they generally took offense to the notion that they did not have the judgment and intelligence to make such a decision for themselves as to enter a smoking lounge or not. It was after that public session that one of the three members of the board switched her vote, and the opening of this business was disallowed.
I am a pulmonary physician, and a good percentage of my career has been spent dealing with the health care ravages of cigarette smoking. It is an injurious and dangerous habit. Having said that, the recent decision by our current Board of Health that disallows anyone who is at this moment 21 years old or younger from ever buying cigarettes within the borders of Northampton is politically astounding.
Within this rule, a person who is 22 years old next year, or 31 years old 10 years from now, or later becomes 41 years old will never have the right to this particular personal decision. The choice to smoke cigarettes given the current balance of public health restrictions such as not being allowed to smoke restaurants and other close public spaces is a risk taken by only that individual and does not impact others in the community. It is not in the purview of the Board of Health. It is a risk taken by the individual, not the public.
Where is this Board of Health relative to health issues associated with the widespread use of cannabis? There is growing data about cognitive damage, significant negative mental health issues, and the probable the role of cannabis use in automobile accidents. There is also research that demonstrates that smoking cannabis causes the same potential lung damage as does tobacco.
At that public meeting 15 years ago, I made the comment to the audience that most in attendance likely support a woman’s right to domain over her body relative to the issue of abortion. Yet, those at the meeting who disapproved of smoking felt that they had the right to abrogate the freedom of other individuals to make decisions about their own selves. The word for this is hypocrisy.
The decision by the Board of Health in this matter is at a minimum overreaching. In truth, it is presumptuous and arrogant.
Dr. Jay Fleitman lives in Florence.