Why Society Must Change First III

[Updates below.]

Previously, I was annoyed with the tone found in a National Fire Prevention Journal issue, and there will be more to come on that later. Now, I'm just pissed off. Time to revisit the issue of public smoking issue. Jan Glidewell of the St. Petersburg Times says:

Hey, look. People had to quit smoking in restaurants and the world didn't end after all. So much for prophecy, huh?

Such a grand way to open a column.

It's difficult to describe the look on the young woman's face as she approached us outside an Irish pub on swank Island Estates. It was part fear, part desperation.

And all motivated by the misapplication of government force.

I honestly thought she had been attacked and was going to ask us to call the police for her.

"They won't let you smoke in there," she said, her voice cracking. "They won't let you smoke anywhere. There is no freedom any more. The government won't let you do anything any more."

Wow, I wanted to say, calm down, Sparky.

Mr. Glidewell, Is she wrong? Outside the hyperbole, Is her statement incorrect? You can dance around the issue by sounding smug and deflecting her concern by saying the community knew this was going to happen, but she isn't fundamentally wrong. You are.

Most of the interviews conducted about the ban going into effect were with smokers. My guess is that that was because they were A) easy to identify and B) easy to locate, to wit: all standing in small, furiously puffing groups of angry people outside places where they used to be able to smoke. The nonsmokers were inside, breathing free and had better things to do than grab strangers and tell them how the world had mistreated them.

When in doubt, throw in some clichès and stereotypes and do what you can to belittle the opposition. He knows he can't refute that they DID have freedom taken away from them and they are rightfully angry, so why even bother with reason?

Now, about how the government and its out-of-control invasion of privacy by making people not smoke in some public places: nonsense.

Well, the correct arguement to make against smoking bans is that they violate an individual's right to his or her life and a property owner's right to dispose of his or her property as they wish. There certainly IS an invasion of privacy in regards to banning smoking on private property such as bars and restaraunts, because there must be a degree of state interference in the affairs of those establishments in order to enforce the laws. But let's not be honest with out readers, eh?

Like it or not, the smoking ban was about as pure a demonstration of democracy as you are likely to see these days. Antismoking activists gathered enough support to place the ban on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, and voters, by a 71 percent to 29 percent margin, approved the amendment. Then their elected officials, for a change, did what they were told to do and enacted the necessary laws.

Like it or not, this is precisely why democracy is do dangerous: "The People" can vote away freedom. Having a majority, supermajority, or even a plurality doesn't make something right, Mr. Glidewell. I'm sure you'd be miffed if a law was passed against smug columnists with white facial hair demanding they shape up with the times and get it trimmed.

Apparently a lot of smokers who think the ban is extremely important now, didn't think it was that important on election day.

And that is their fault for not fighting it harder and louder and from the proper angle.

A voter-initiated constitutional amendment may rankle those whom it affects most directly, but it is hardly jack-booted thugs taking away one of your sacred constitutional rights.

A smoker walks into a bar and lights up, thus violating the law. What happens next? Well, if the community is consistent in the application of the law, the smoker will be sanctioned, most likely with a fine. But what if the smoker refuses to pay the fine? The law must be enforced, right? Enter your "jack-booted thugs" who will drag him to court or to jail. Eventually, ALL such laws must end in physical force because otherwise they wouldn't be followed.

Your rights are not limited to what the Constitution spells out, Mr. Glidewell. Don't fall for that trap.

As there has been in the past with other limits placed on smoking, there are dire prophecies about the death of personal freedom, the end of Life As We Know It and the economic demise of the entire tourism industry because people who find out they can't smoke will take their money somewhere else, like France, where smoking is not only allowed in most public places, but seems to be mandatory.

Again: nonsense.

He's taking hyperbole and setting up straw men. It's the slow cancer-death of personal freedom and responsibility that is the problem.

I heard the same thing after other limits were placed on smoking, including those that were enacted when I was still a smoker and was as angry and felt as abused by the changes as most smokers do today.

Man, I don't smoke tobacco anymore. I don't have a horse in this race. But it affects all of us. Jan has lost his sense of outrage because he isn't negatively affected, which is frustrating because principles should stand up longer than that.

And, yes, drinking is probably as big a health risk as smoking, but, again, my vodka martini isn't wreaking havoc on your liver cells.

The problem with smoking is, and always has been, that it is a habit that forces others in your vicinity to participate with you, whether they want to or not. The issue boils down to a very simple question: Does anyone have that right?

Has everyone lost their fucking minds when it comes to the word "force"!?!? Smoker DOES NOT force anyone to breathe their smoke in. The smoker contributes to an atmosphere that anyone is free to continue living in or free to leave at any time. Ban supporters cannot seem to get this through their heads. The difficulty in leaving that atmosphere or the annoyance it poses does not factor in! There is no force involved! People are literally free to leave if they dislike the environment. They are also free to set up businesses where smoking is prohibited.

Now, if he wants to really talk about force, how about the very real and very destructive force that comes from the community from the hand of the state which deprives people of their liberty? I doubt he wants to discuss this seriously.

In Florida the voters have said, overwhelmingly, that it is the smoker's obligation to find somewhere private to enjoy his or her tobacco.

Then those Floridian voters are the true thugs.

We will, incidentally, survive.

In fact more of us probably will survive now.

"Tighten the thumbscrews. It doesn't hurt that much."

UPDATE(10/15/2003 2:02am)
Good news: the Austin Smoking Task Force Report is in and it's definitely worth your read.

UPDATE(6/1/2004 11:06am)
Austin Smoking Ban in Effect Today

UPDATED 8/30/2005 1:51pm
Deadline for the Austin Smoking Ordinance

Posted by Drizzten at July 23, 2003 07:30 AM