Sponsors

Chicago smoking ban clouds issue Email Print

A near-unanimous vote has seemingly sealed the fate of Chicago smokers, as early next year restaurants will become non-smoking establishments, with bars, taverns, and restaurants with bars or taverns inside of them following suit in mid-2008 (provided they don't create an air filtration system that meets the requirements set forth.

This ban has been met with boisterous approval from non-smokers (especially "Behold-in-an-awed-stupor-m y-health" ex-smokers), who claim varying amounts of irritation, inconvenience and trauma at being subjected to second-hand smoke, or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), because everyone knows that euphemisms are totally awesome.

Complaints ranging from burning eyes and reeking clothing to increased blood pressure and cancer abound as non-smokers wag their fingers and say "Na-na-na-na!" at the recently jilted smokers. Soon, smokers will be exposed to the elements of a pitiless Chicago winter as they huddle deep in their coats, nursing deep grudges and developing persitent bouts of pneumonia. And for what? What has brought this suffering on top of a group already suffering the burdens of massive taxes, massive insurance rates, hacking coughs and the grim knowledge that they are guiding the icy scythe of death into their very lungs?

Many people try and answer this question, but very few answer it correctly.

The most popular answer is that ETS is dangerous.

"I have a cousin who knew this dude in college who had a neighbor whose ex-wife's new boyfriend got cancer from ETS!"

"I went to a bar one night, and when I woke up I was coughing for nearly 8 seconds!"

"ETS broke into my car and stole my radio!"

When pressed for details, they stutter, stammer, and fall back on tried and true methods of arguing: propaganda and junk science.

3000 deaths per year. 10,000 deaths per year. Over 100,000 dead worldwide in a single year from ETS. The numbers are as varied as they are unprovable. How many doctors stop running tests and asking questions of their patients after hearing they live with a smoker, or work in a bar? How many lung cancer patients simply had the bad luck to get cancer in their lungs, not due to ETS but rather due to the cosmic equivalent of "being shit upon"? Some? None? All? Most? Half? Can we ever be sure?

Smoking is bad for you. ETS does not magically become imbued with vitamins and anti-oxidants once it leaves my lungs and enters the air. But many of the so-called studies that promote the evils of ETS are also studies done by dubious sources. Can we honestly trust an anti-smoking group to accurately portray whatever dangers there might be to ETS? We might as well ask PETA to head up a study on whether eating meat is good for you or not. Other studies looked at lung cancer patients, pointed fingers at ETS, and completely ignored the fact that these people predominantly lived and work in industrial areas, breathing in all manner of pollutants from their work as well as their play.

The bottom line as far as I see it is that, while not healthy, ETS has yet to be conclusively proven to be as deadly as people make it out to be.

Another popular argument for the smoking ban is that smoking will kill me and I should be happy that someone is giving me the motivation and reason to quit, and these people are really just looking out for my best interests and are really really nice and caring. While they do seem to care deeply about my health, and while I certainly enjoy it when people stick their noses into my life and start telling me how to do things, I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on this one, anyway. It's merely a convenient argument used to try and bolster their position that they "really just want everyone to be healthy and live forever." Nonsense.

The other reason for the ban (or rather, for the support of the ban) is that people just don't like the smell. Simple as that. Simple and understandable. I'm sure to a non-smoker, cigarette smoke is vile and repugnant. It probably stinks, it probably clings to hair and clothes, and it's probably not a great thing to have all up in your face unless you smoke.

However...

We have a thing called "free enterprise" in this country. It allows for businesses to operate with minimal interference from the government, and it's a strong reason capitalism is working (the extent to which it's working is arguable, but it's kinda working). If restaurants, bars and taverns want to be a smoke-free establishment, it's perfectly within their right to do so. Enjoy the smoke-free environment, I'll simply take my business elsewhere and everyone will win. It's the sort of situation that gives everyone choices and infringes upon nobody.

Alas, the government decided that wasn't good enough and now have forced businesses to change to meet the demands of one group of people at the expense of another. Personal feelings of smoking aside, that's discrimination. It's probably popular discrimination, but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.

A better idea would be to open smoke-free restaurants and bars, to give everyone options and to allow everyone the freedom of choice they should have. Rather than force either conformity or discomfort (the latter being a rather mild word for the feeling of standing outside in sub-zero weather, watching your fingers turn into ice and fall from your hand to shatter into a thousand pieces, trying to inhale from your cigarette before your lungs freeze), we all could have been winners. It could have been musical chairs with two players and six chairs.

Instead, it's musical chairs with two people, one chair, and the government just took a lead pipe to the kneecaps of one of the players. Have you ever tried to win at musical chairs with your kneecaps shattered, you lying on the ground and writhing in agony? I don't recommend it.

So now smokers must suffer even more as the non-smokers can rejoice in their ill-gotten rewards, like the camp-following whores of fantasy novels, falling upon the vanquished armies' dead and snatching all the shiny, pretty things they can carry. It's not enough that we pay exhorbitant prices and taxes; it's not enough that we're addicted to killing ourselves; it's not enough that people look at us as if we were stabbing puppies whenever we took a puff.

Now we have to be outside while we do it.

Oh, well. Nothing can change it, no one will listen. Just learn a lesson, non-smokers. The government took away a freedom from a select group of people today. A limited and small freedom, yes. A specific government, sure. But yesterday we had a right, and today we don't. Who knows what the government will decide you don't need next?

And now, swimming in Nyquil, Jager and Red Bull, having written entirely too much on a subject that very few people care about, I shall step outside to smoke. And as I stand, gazing at the heavens as snow falls upon my face and wind lashes at my body, I will find solace in the fact that I'm satisfied with what I just wrote, that I made my point.

Man, it felt good to get that off my chest.


KEYWORDS: ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

Poll

What should be done about smoking?
It should be entirely banned in all forms and cigarettes made illegal. 0%
It should be heavily restricted and not allowed in public areas (parks, restaurants, etc). 0%
It should be moderately restricted, and there should be bars and restaurants that are smoke-free 0%
It should not be changed and should stay the same as it is now. 0%
No restrictions at all. 0%
Upon reaching ten years of age, each child shall be given a zippo, a pack of Camels, and told to "Have fun." 100%

Votes: 2
Results | Other Polls
< Coulter Feeling Like an Outkast in Connecticut | Torture Denials: Baloney >
 Display:
but I will never approve of government bans on smoking. I agree with your market forces argument.

On another thread relating to pharmacists filling prescriptions, a poster wrote that they should not take jobs that thrust them into circumstances they do not approve of (which I agree with). I did not get an answer as to whether or not this concept should apply to the prospective employee's of a theoretical establishment that allowed it's patrons to smoke.

by roysol on 12/09/2005 08:33:06 AM EST

I'm sympathetic to your argument. However, we've been under bans in California for nearly a decade and I've found it actually ... okay. I never HAVE smoked inside my home anyway because I don't want to expose my kids to it.

On top of the state laws, we even have in our town a law that you can't smoke within twenty feet of ANY business or public building (which means ducking out into an alley or out onto the sidewalk is verboten, although I must say I've never seen it enforced).

And I'm going to keep my eye on this diary all day. I expect LOTS of non-smokers to show up hailing your view as selfish, harmful, inconsiderate, etc. A lot of emotion (and knee-jerk judgments about people) seem to emerge around smoke-banning issues, in my experience.

by SusanG on 12/09/2005 09:11:47 AM EST

I'm not expecting it to be the end of the world, of course, and I too don't smoke in my house (that's more my parents' doing than my own, admittedly), but I too wouldn't mind stepping outside to smoke in California, where you normally needn't worry about hypothermia in the winter.

Not a knock on you or your state, just personally I've always hated cold weather, so this ban hits me where it hurts me. I'm sure it'll be ok as well, and it might even make me quit sooner than I had planned.

Just not comfortable with the government making decisions that should be left up to the businesses themselves.

by TheBlaz on 12/09/2005 11:41:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: