Four-Eight-Four [dot org]

Pop quiz! What’s the phrase you always hear when anti-smoking advocates talk about banning smoking in public places? That’s right … “second-hand smoke.” And … they’ve got a point. Almost everybody finds cigarette smoke to be obnoxious. Most people don’t like cigar smoke. And, even though lots of people have fond memories of their grandfather smoking a pipe, and love the smell … you’ll find people that don’t like that either (especially if the smoker in question is smoking something heavy on perique or latakia).

“What if I want to enjoy a steak and a glass of wine without breathing smoke?” we hear. “What if I want to go to the bar and have a beer and not come home smelling like stale cigarette smoke?” My answer has always been “Well, don’t go the restaurant/bar that allows smoking. Vote with your wallet. If enough people do that, most of the places that allow smoking will go out of business. My opinion is … if smokers want a restaurant where they can smoke, fine. If I want to eat in a restaurant without smoke … fine. We can get along here. (Note: I am an occasional pipe and cigar smoker)

Silly Libertarian ideas …

So, what happens when a city like Chicago bans smoking nearly city-wide (with the exception of shops that sell tobacco products)? What happens when, after the ban passes, when anti-smoking advocates find a place that doesn’t quite look like a tobacconist where people are smoking, poking at their laptops, and generally having fun?

Yes, that’s right, they are outraged!

Why? Is there some reason they want to visit and chill out at the Marshall McGearty Tobacco Lounge? The place that generally sells tobacco, but happens to have coffee as well, and free wireless internet access? Probably not. I’d wager there is a coffee shop around the corner they can enjoy. After all, it’s Chicago. So … obviously, second-hand smoke isn’t the issue here.

Fortunately, the article I read on the WRAL web site isn’t shy about saying why:

Critics say the lounge does something else: Sidestep an ordinance enacted to save lives.

“People are dying,” said Ed Smith, the city alderman who sponsored the ordinance. “This (business) gives them a chance to die.”

What’s more, anti-smoking advocates worry the lounge sends a dangerous message.

“These places are an effort to glamorize smoking,” said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, saying the lounge is an effort to create “the exact kind of attractive place young people go to.”

So … it’s really not about the second-hand smoke. It’s about saving lives … and not the lives of the non-smokers. It’s about trying to snuff out smoking completely, and helping the smokers do the right thing by making it impossible to do what they are too stupid to do on their own. Yes, some anti-smoking advocates have been saying this for years. But generally, they’ve been working the press under waving the “second-hand smoke” flag. Because really … what non-smoker likes to come home smelling like cigarette smoke? How many of them really like that smell? None. So … who among them is going to be opposed to banning public smoking? They don’t smoke, so they don’t care.

Make no mistake …. as Ed Smith and Matt Meyers demonstrate above, the real issue is whether ANYBODY should be able to choose to smoke. Yes, smoking is dirty. Yes, it has negative effects on your health. Different types of tobacco use can seriously increase your risk of certain kinds of cancer, heart and lung disease, etc. But … the key issue is … should the government really be able to say whether you should be able to do something that is detrimental to your health? Do you REALLY want them making that choice?

Try changing a few words in the quotes above:

“These places are an effort to glamorize fast food,” said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Fast Food-Free Kids, saying the lounge is an effort to create “the exact kind of attractive place young people go to.”

Hmmm. Yes, fast food isn’t generally healthy either. Nobody wants to see kids eating three meals a day at McDonald’s either. We’ve got far too many people in this nation with an obesity problem (myself included). But, the fact is, most of us have at least one unhealthy habit. Do we want the government banning [insert your bugagboo here]? No! It’s not their responsibility to keep you healthy.

So, what’s the big deal about this place in Chicago … one among millions of businesses … where people can go and smoke and chill? There isn’t any big deal. Let them smoke. They aren’t forcing you, Mr. or Mrs. anti-smoking advocate, to breathe their second-hand smoke. You have your businesses … and now that is most of Chicago. Let them have theirs.

Read More: A Year After City Smoking Ban, Tobacco Lounge Still In Business