More on the Smoking Ban

Let’s talk about the pending smoking ban in D.C. a little more, shall we?

Ultimately, everyone on either side of this latest polarizing issue is only looking out for their own self interest. The smokers don’t want the ban b/c they want to smoke wherever they feel like going. The non-smokers want the ban b/c they want the abject absence of smoke wherever they feel like going. It’s all about me, what I want, and fuck anyone who doesn’t agree with me.

Call it over-inflated self-importance or egregious self-entitlement (which it is), but around the D.C. Metro area—dare I say America as a whole?—it’s the norm.

The biggest problem here is that everyone is extrapolating their personal opinion/preference, and holding up the “welfare of our whole fucking society” as reason to be on their side. The smokers cry facism/liberty/rights, the nons cry health issues/odor/workplace saftey (as if this is an OSHA matter). There’s not a single person on either side that gives a fuck about the affect on society, ban or not.

Why? Because, ban or not, there’s not going to be an affect on society. Just the individual constituents who pussy-whine this way or that, depending on the outcome and how it fits/skews against their personal ideal. Or, condensed, bitching will effuse from only the inconvenienced. Big fucking deal.

Take A Side, Asshole! Okay, okay… but only after the jump.

First, I don’t give Shit One about the smoking ban in D.C. because I think everyone on both sides is wrong. But, for those of you who just can’t live without knowing which side I would “vote” for: I would vote against the ban. Why?

If you’re a smoker, and you come to my house, you will not be allowed to smoke inside. I smoke, but not inside. Got a problem with my smoking ban? Fuck off, it’s my place.

When there is an NHL season, there’s nothing like rounding up a few people, heading to the closest bar, sharing multiple beers, and smoking copious cigarettes while screaming at the lugs on the big-screen for passing shit or checking like girls. It’s a great time, and in this situation, having to go outside to smoke would suck… because you might miss that game-winning goal. Then again, you might miss it if you head to the pisser, too. So smoking inside that bar for that 3-hour stretch is a GoodThing.

Better than going to a bar is sitting a few rows behind the glass at the actual game. Guess what? You can’t smoke in any professional hockey arena in North America. Go take a leak, stand in beer line, or outside to smoke, and you might miss that goal. Yet, it’s a given, and people aren’t bitching about that smoking ban.

Case-by-case, situation-by-situation a proprietary smoking ban (or lack thereof) fits the circumstances appropriately, and people on either side of the argument are unlikely raise a stink over it. That’s why I’d vote against the ban: Let the owners of the buildings decide whether or not to allow smoking.

A vote against the ban still allows that to happen. A vote for the ban removes the owners’ right to decide what will or will not happen under the roof they pay those exorbitant property taxes to possess.


6 thoughts on “More on the Smoking Ban

  1. Which was my point, previous post. It just fucking amazes me how many people in the world are totally fucking afraid of personal choice, so they adopt a policy of ‘aggravate and legislate’.

  2. I’d vote for a ban for the same reason I’d vote for food safety inspectons (or to prevent a car manufacturer from making a car without seatbelts).. Reasonable limits can be imposed on business owners under the guise of public health. (But again, this could just be my egalitarian Canuck speaking). Is a smoking ban reasonable when it comes to public health? I think so. Your mileage may vary. :-)

  3. Sean: The major difference is that there are nation-wide standards and laws in place to enforce food safety, worker safety and car manufacturing. While it may not be illegal to make a car w/o seatbelts, it would never be available for sale in the U.S. due to their omission.

    It is still legal to manufacture, sell and consume cigarettes in the U.S. Plus, there’s no way that the federal govt. would legislate against big business to ban smoking in public nationwide, so it’s left up to the state and municipal govts. to do it.

    None of that changes my opinion, though: Leave it up to the building owners. If they choose to ban smoking, they may lose some patrons (probably not many), but will save money on employee healthcare costs or sick days/call-outs. Maybe.

  4. Flawed premise on the seatbelts, methinks. I think asbestos is a better comparison. It’s not illegal to manufacture or sell, but there has been a proven causal link between it and fatal pulmonary diseases. Therefore, there are restrictions in place as to how it can be used, where it can be used, and under what conditions it can be used for the safety of the asbestos workers and for the safety of those who are potentially exposed to airborn asbestos particles just from walking into a building, working on a navy ship, etc. Why should lung cancer and/or emphysema be treated any differently than asbestosis?

  5. Karen: You’re right.. it might not be the best analogy. Excellent asbestos analogy.

    Gary: The federal government in the US shouldn’t regulate public smoking because it would be unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.