Fallacious arguments

Dear sir:
Recently, there have been many a raft of fallacious arguments floating about. These arguments are directed against the Northwestern Health Unit’s requirement that smoking be eliminated in enclosed public places.
With just a little bit of thinking and research, one can see where each one of these arguments proves to be fallacious.
Some current fallacies and myths:
1. Second-hand smoke is no health hazard.
The fact is that second-hand smoke is known to cause lung cancer, emphysema, and to exacerbate other lung conditions, such as asthma and bronchitis. All research backs up this fact.
Oh, yes, one may be able to discover some research that shows the detrimental effects are not quite as bad as some had thought. But no unbiased research supports the concept that there are no serious consequences to the inhalation of second-hand smoke.
2. The requirement to eliminate smoking in all public places is a step toward eliminating all smoking from our society.
Not so! The only purpose of the Northwestern Health Unit’s requirement is the protection of people from the consequences of second-hand smoke. There is no attempt to interfere with any one’s choice to smoke in private homes or outside. Yet this idea continues to crop up.
One municipal councillor made the following statement: “Drunk drivers kill people all the time. I wonder if Sarsfield wants to bring back prohibition, too.”
Actually, we already have prohibition of drunk drivers! That’s why we have road checks to detect them. That’s why we have laws against drunken driving, and means to enforce these laws. Our society permits drinking, but not where it threatens the lives of people.
The major change that has just taken place concerning smoking is an exact parallel. We will continue to permit smoking, but not where it threatens the lives of people.
3. People are losing their freedom. They should be able to choose whether to be in a smoky environment or a smoke-free environment.
That’s just the point! Without the present health requirement that all enclosed public places be smoke-free, there would be little or no choice to be in a smoke-free environment!
With the requirement, non-smokers can have a smoke-free environment in public places and smokers can have a smoky environment—outdoors, and in private places such as homes and private clubs.
Limiting some people’s choice in some areas often provides much greater freedom to all. For example, not permitting people to steal results in greater freedom for all people to enjoy their possessions. Similarly, not permitting people to smoke in enclosed public places results in greater freedom for all people to enjoy better health.
It is not possible for a society to maximize the benefits of its members generally unless it restricts actions which would threaten general well-being.
4. Public businesses that do not allow smoking lose money.
Most businesses actually end up with more money! Non-smokers who comprise about 75 percent of the population want to eat, drink, and do business in a smoke-free environment.
In the past, many smokers have gone to restaurants just to smoke and drink coffee with their friends. When a restaurant goes smoke-free, its owners often find that their new customers are coming for the purpose of eating!
Result? More income for the owner.
It is true that some restaurants, which were mostly a hang-out place for smokers, initially lose customers when they become smoke-free. But in time, there will be many new customers to replace them.
5. Taxpayers’ money is being used against the taxpayers.
On the contrary, it is being used for the benefit of the taxpayers, as well as everyone else. For the health regulation that does not permit smoking in enclosed public places will prevent countless deaths and suffering.
Furthermore, no owners of establishments will be fined if they choose not to defy this health regulation.
And further still, if taxpayer’s money is the concern, perhaps we need to consider how much will be saved by the public health system with a diminished number of patients with smoke-related diseases.
6. Dr. Peter Sarsfield, medical officer of health, is an evil dictator who bullies people, and who, in his arrogance, is trying to control everyone’s lives.
In university courses in logic, this one is known as “argumentum ad hominem,” that is, an argument against the person. If one cannot logically show that a person is wrong, one makes personal attacks.
These attacks may consist of character defamation, name-calling, ridiculing, sarcasm, or just a spewing forth of vitriol and venom.
I, for one, applaud Dr. Sarsfield, and those who have been working with him, for their concern for the health of the people of the district, and their willingness to carry out their convictions (based on fact) to increase public health through a regulation which does not permit smoking in enclosed public places.
I am grateful that they have the courage to ensure that the regulation is enforced—and to persevere in spite of the attacks they are receiving.
Sincerely,
Donald Clink