Anti-smokers just can’t quit
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Wenatchee City Council could have banned smoking in parks. Many cities have, and many are considering it. The city can do it, just because. It doesn’t even have to pick from the usual anti-smoking justifications, real or imagined, like protecting public health or protecting children or fighting litter. It’s enough that most people who use city parks find smoking objectionable and don’t want to watch people do it, or smell it, or get a small whiff of their personal residue. The implications of banning a normally legal personal habit simply because it produces an odor doesn’t matter. A city can ban a public nuisance, and a public nuisance is usually whatever the city says it is. The limits are broad, and smoking has so few defenders the political risk is slight.
The City Council did not do it. It had been pondering requests and recommendations for a park smoking ban, or at least extreme limitations, for more than a year now. Previously, it had rejected a proposal to make in-park smoking a punishable offense, subject to fine, doubting its practicality. Instead, this month the council voted to create “tobacco-free” zones around places where children gather or people congregate, like playgrounds, wading pools, the city pool, athletic courts, sporting events with spectators, city-sponsored public gatherings, etc. It will not be a real ban, but a “courtesy policy” subject to what Mayor Dennis Johnson calls “voluntary enforcement.” They will put up please-don’t-smoke signs and settle for that.
This is a slightly wimpy choice, a compromise, a sort-of-but-not-quite smoking ban, but it has a pragmatic side. The city police have a lot better things to do than chase after smokers in parks, or answer calls from people who saw someone with a cigarette over there by that tree, just a minute ago.
A thanks-for-not-smoking policy won’t clear the air completely. There are very powerful social forces at work to crush out the few remaining smokers among us, and they will not stop at parks. We banned smoking in public buildings, and noticed the world seemed a nicer place, and so we banned smoking in the indoor places where people worked, and we liked that, even if our addicted co-workers had to shuffle out to the alley. Then we banned smoking on private property, if it is a public accommodation, places like restaurants. We banned smoking even if the property owner wished to allow it and all the customers came voluntarily. Then we did what was once unthinkable, and banned smoking in bars and taverns. Then we banned smoking on sidewalks and alleys within 24 feet of a door or vent, should we be threatened by odor. This was all justified by very tenuous belief that every molecule of tobacco smoke is harmful somewhere, but that didn’t matter. Smoking was banned because we didn’t like it, and those who talked of individual liberty and freedom of choice were either die-hards or fringe libertarians.
So where does it stop? Not at your threshold. The next great frontier of anti-smoking law is the private residence. Public housing agencies across the country are banning smoking in their units, with federal encouragement. In California, the city of Richmond passed an ordinance ordering all apartments and condominiums to ban smoking. Nearby, the city of Belmont banned smoking in all apartments and condos. In January you will be subject to a $100 fine for lighting up in your own home. The justification is that secondhand smoke might seep through a wall or vent and be detected by a neighbor. One Belmont city councilman compared smoking to shooting a gun though a wall.
In New York there is a growing movement among landlords to prohibit smoking by their tenants, the way they ban pets, according to The New York Times. No one is talking about a city ordinance, but someone is no doubt imagining it, and if they can make it there, they’ll make it anywhere.
We should be able to sleep without fretting that someone somewhere might be sitting on their couch smoking a cigarette, but we just can’t give it up. Onward, prohibitionists.
Tracy Warner’s column appears Tuesday through Friday. He can be reached at warner@wenworld.com or 665-1163.
Comments
Want to comment on this story? Registered users can use the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
I don't know the science, but I'd be willing to bet that the "second-hand" smoke from a car's tailpipe is more dangerous than second-hand cigarette smoke. And if we're going to ban things for stinking, how about excess amounts of perfume/cologne?
November 18, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FerdBerfel (Ferd Berfel) says...
The only thing this "law" accomplishes is to show how stupid politicians can be. A few points to ponder: 1) Why is it that this type of thing is always hyped as being for the children? Are adults not as suseptible to second hand smoke? 2) will the politicians soon be banning smoking from the sidewalks adjoining parks that children frequent becasue some smoke might accidently waft into the nostrils of some innocent on the playfield? 3) Do the politicians actually think that scofflaw smokers are going to police themselves? 4) Do they actually believe that the police have the time and resources to enforce such an idiotic ordinance?
Luunacy, sheer lunacy!
Oh well, I think I'll go to the park and light some incense. hmmmmmm.......
November 19, 2009 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Me (Iam Right) says...
Three decades ago or longer, while stumping for sane marijuana laws, I warned tobacco smokers that they were next, and that they should therefore join the cause NOW, before their favorite smoke and their personal freedoms were also taken away. Everyone, including my own mother, thought I was nuts. I like saying "I told you so", so I think I'll take this opportunity to say just that; I TOLD YOU SO!
Of course, they haven't actually outlawed tobacco, they've just made it illegal to smoke indoors or outdoors. Which pretty much makes it illegal to smoke, period.
The prohibitionists--mostly religious nutcases who could care less about the freedoms our country was founded upon--continue their endless assault on our freedoms. What have you done recently to fight back against these freedom-haters? Nothing? Then you can reasonably expect to live in a totalitarian country. Freedom isn't free, it must be continually earned, often with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The American people, cowards to the last man, haven't earned the right to be free. I can only imagine what Benjamin Franklin, sitting on his porch enjoying a pipeful of his favorite smoke, must be thinking.
November 20, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Psycho (Yeah Right) says...
As Americans (US) we live in a society that is about freedom. Unfortunately you are only free to do what you want until it encroaches on my freedom. In a morally responsible society its citizens would enforce that upon themselves.
Thus the reason for more and more laws. Self Righteous freedom mongers who believe their "rights" should allow them to run roughshod over everyone else's freedoms ruin it for everyone.
For example, I like loud rock music. So does my neighbor. Yet a 3 am when he decides to continue the party he just left, next to my bedroom window, he is stealing my freedom to sleep. That's why we have noise ordinances.
The issues here isn't the loss of the smokers personal freedoms. The issues is the Lack Of Respect AMERICANS call freedom.
November 20, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Me (Iam Right) says...
Psycho says
"Yet at 3 am when he decides to continue the party he just left, next to my bedroom window, he is stealing my freedom to sleep."
Some people are day sleepers (work nights). So revving your car engine over and over at 11:00 in the morning is stealing MY freedom to sleep. Why should day sleepers not have the same rights as night-sleepers? Why should the noise ordinance cover times when you want to sleep, but not times when I want to sleep? Why should the noise ordinance cover Rock and Roll music, but not trains and planes and garbage trucks? Yes, the self-righteous certainly do have the habit of running rough-shod over other's rights, and often don't even realize that their doing it.
November 20, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Norm (Norm Messer) says...
Fred: No, adults aren't as susceptable to damage from second hand smoke as children are.
.
Iam Right: Your suggestion that blood needs to be spilled to protect the rights of smokers is ridiculous.
.
Psycho: I'm reasonably certain that people who smoke outdoors are contributing far less to others' lung damage than diesel trucks are.
November 20, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Psycho (Yeah Right) says...
Comprehension (Merriam-Webster) the act or action of grasping with intellect Understanding.
Wow
I posted neither for or against smoking, it was about the lack personal responsibility being the reason for so many laws.
I Am(Often Wrong, But Never In Doubt) Right and Norm try to actually comprehend and understand the post before you reply.
November 20, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Me (Iam Right) says...
Norm,
I didn't say that blood needs to be spilled, just that often, sadly, that is what it takes to protect freedom.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
And just so you know, I am a non-smoker, for 12 years now. And from a personal standpoint, I like going into bars and not having to deal with all the smoke. But from a freedom standpoint, I wish it was the bar owners that made the rules in their bars, not the government.
"That government is best which governs least."
November 20, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Me (Iam Right) says...
Psycho,
Frankly, your post waffled so much it's hard to know what you're for or against. I read it several times and still had a hard time making out exactly what it is that you're trying to say.
November 20, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Psycho (Yeah Right) says...
To many big words?
November 20, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Psycho (Yeah Right) says...
I was trying to point out that freedom isn't absolute. Your freedom is limited by everyone else's freedom. If everyone was considerate of their neighbors freedom, then we wouldn't have so many laws.
November 20, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Me (Iam Right) says...
Nope, not too many big words (note that it's "too" not "to"). I graduated college with a cumulative GPA of 3.93 and a measured IQ of 143. Like I said, you just waffled too much for me to understand what you're getting at.
November 20, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Me (Iam Right) says...
Ok. That's worded much better now. Now I get your point.
November 20, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )