'Without saying who am I to judge'

For days, a question has been turning over in my mind: Who am I to intervene?

As an adult, and especially as someone who values individual freedoms highly as a lawyer and philosopher, how legitimate is it to interfere with the life choices of others? How—by what right—could someone smoking a cigarette enter my sphere of intervention? Is every individual not the traveler of their own path? Is that not so, sir? Laissez-faire, let them be!

It is precisely at this point that another voice rises within me. A more anxious and restless voice: Yes, everyone is the traveler of their own path, but what if those paths were poisoned from the very beginning? If the scent of cigarette smoke has clung to the side of that path since childhood, can we truly call this “free will”?

I am a former smoker. That is to say, I am participating in this debate not from the outside, but from the inside—from quite deep inside. I am among those who know that smoking steals not only a person's body but also their decisions, their daily energy, and even their self-confidence. Addiction, over time, becomes not just a habit, but a lifestyle, an identity. On one hand, you do not want to smoke; on the other, you cannot quit. The years spent in that strange contradiction erode a person's self-trust. And yes, in the end, you are not the only one paying the price; you make those around you pay it as well.

Beyond the personal dimension, there is also a social cost. In a country like Turkey that has adopted the principle of a social state, the healthcare expenditures imposed on the public by smoking-related illnesses are at terrifying levels. Cancer, COPD, heart diseases... Many of these are treated with public funds. In other words, the limit of the discourse of “my body, my decision” ends where society begins to bear the cost arising from that decision.

So, does intervention become legitimate at this point? Is the public cost of nicotine addiction a sufficient source of legitimacy on its own? I do not know. Let us look at it from another angle: 

When we speak of freedom, we generally understand negative liberty: being free from the interference of others, being able to do as one wishes. However, there is also positive liberty: the capacity of an individual to realize their own potential. While negative liberty says “let them do it,” positive liberty says “clear the way so they can do it.” When young people get involved with cigarettes before their will is fully formed, it actually strips them of their positive liberty from the start. It does not grant them the right to choose in the future. Because once addiction takes hold, it is not a choice that begins, but captivity.

That is why every measure taken to ensure young people do not encounter cigarettes at an early age is not a prohibition, but a defense of freedom. It is not intervention, but protection. For the freedom of a person whose will has been crippled becomes a matter of debate. 

The issue here is not about interfering with anyone smoking on their balcony. But the issue is to speak openly against the kiosks selling cigarettes in front of schools, the posts on Instagram that make smoking look “cool,” the encouraging advertisements, and the smoking culture that surrounds children.

Because this culture is insidiously settling into the developing sphere of freedom of young people. It is certain that decadence and a careless lifestyle are on the rise. Carelessness is the current currency. After all, the life purpose of most of us is fading away. Saying “what is the point of preventing it” unleashes a person's darkest desires. 

The fight against smoking is not an effort of “moral superiority.” It is not about belittling anyone or dictating to anyone how they should live. On the contrary, this is a struggle to protect potential. It is a matter of protecting that child's chance to play sports, the possibility of running in the future without being out of breath, and the probability of becoming a creatively productive individual.

Therefore, I do not find the measures taken against smoking to be anti-freedom. On the contrary, I see them as freedom itself. Because one cannot be free without being able to breathe.

Let us return to the initial issue. Who am I to intervene? I am someone who was once lost in cigarette smoke and then regained their breath.

I am writing as someone who thinks not only of today but of a freer, more productive tomorrow.

And I believe: A smoke-free future means not just a healthier future, but a fairer, more equal, and more hopeful one.