Environmental Law

Guest Post - Passive Smoke Equals Active Pollution

By Walter James

This is a guest post from Heather Johnson, a freelance writer.

Crime and punishment go hand in hand, well, if the criminal is brought to book and convicted in a trial. But there are crimes that are often ignored, let alone punished ? smoking being one of the biggest in this list. Lighting up that stick of tobacco and inhaling the poisonous smoke is bad enough, but what?s worse is the fact that the smoker is poisoning everyone around him/her by polluting the surrounding environment.

Can smoking be considered an environmental crime? Apparently not, even though it could technically fall under the Clean Air Act of 1970 which regulates emissions of gases and small particles released into the air. The CAA was instrumental in allowing the EPA to set air quality standards (National Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS) that protected both public and environmental health.

Probably the reason why smoking fails to attract severe penalties under the CAA is because the pollutants from cigarettes do not place people in the surroundings in immediate danger. The dangers of second-hand smoke have been proven beyond doubt, which is why the Clean Indoor Air Act was introduced in most states across the country.

The campaign against second-hand smoke began as early as 1970 when the Group Against Smoking Pollution (aptly titled GASP) took on the mantle of educating the public about the ill-effects of passive smoking. Health concerns finally pushed the government to outlaw smoking in airports, restaurants, hospitals, classrooms and other public buildings.

Today, though there is enough to conclusively show that smoking, both active and passive, kills, not enough is being done to put the tobacco companies out of business. Instead, no-smoking zones and laws are being enacted and put into use all over the USA. While some states like Iowa, Delaware, Hawaii, and Colorado have statewide bans on smoking indoors in closed public places like bars, restaurants and the like, others have partially introduced similar laws which, if violated, can invite fines of $500 and more.

What is the point in penalties, actions that are seen to be seeking a cure instead of attempting to prevent. The damage has already been done, and undoing it is not a possibility. But the monetary and criminal punishments do serve as deterrents to like-minded others, and every small bit helps. Tiny drops of water make the mighty ocean, and every small effort on each of our parts to promote a smoke-free atmosphere will reap rewards.  

By-line:

This article is contributed by Heather Johnson, a freelance writer as well as a regular commentator on the topic of online criminal justice degrees. Heather invites your questions, comments and freelancing job inquiries at heatherjohnson2323@gmail.com.

Full post as published by Environmental Crimes Blog on June 07, 2008 (boomark / email).