Posted on 02/04/2007 9:26:55 AM PST by Chi-townChief
Way back when, the closest thing to a "smoking ban" had to do with the age at which you could legally buy cigarettes. I think it was 12 or 13. After that, about half the teenage population seemed to be lighting up at least once an hour.
At Morgan Park High School, where I spent four years in the 1960s, there was a white line on the sidewalk a block away from the school building. That marked the point where the high school determined kids could smoke. It didn't stop the hard-core smokers who really needed to feed their habit -- between classes, they'd puff away in bathrooms so heavy with gray, fragrant clouds that you could barely see two feet in front of you. I recall not once going to the bathroom during my high school years.
These days, at the dinner table, I am guaranteed a big laugh by talking about my childhood doctor and how he'd examine me as he smoked. Wearing a stethoscope, he'd tell me to breathe in as his unfiltered Camel -- he wasn't one of those wimpy doctors who smoked Marlboros or Kents -- accumulated a big ash on the side of the desk.
Doctors weren't the only medical professionals who smoked. My mother used to regularly proclaim that "all nurses smoke." And patients, of course, were allowed to smoke in their hospital rooms.
Smoking was allowed in nearly all public places -- theaters were a notable exception -- and no one would give a second thought to lighting up on a bus or train, on airplanes, in restaurants, college dorm rooms or in the workplace.
That was truly a time when a "level playing field" existed for smokers. I came from a family of non-smokers but, as a kid, I can't remember my mom and dad ever complaining about being exposed to other people's smoke.
Things are sure different today and the concept of a level playing field, when it comes to smoking, refers almost exclusively to restaurants and bars. In the past few weeks, we have heard much about how a level playing field doesn't exist as long as there are restaurants and bars where smoking is allowed. In an era when smoking is banned in nearly all public places, the idea that a level playing field depends on people being able to fire up a smoke is more than a little sad.
But then, just about everything about smoking is sad. For smokers, it's an addictive behavior that can lead to serious health problems -- even death. For people who don't smoke, it is smelly and disgusting and pollutes the air that people who choose not to use tobacco products have to breathe.
Smoking bans in our Southland have been in the news a great deal as local communities debate whether to allow smoking in public, and especially at bars and restaurants. The most widely publicized smoking bans went into effect early last month in Orland Park, Tinley Park and Oak Forest. After a couple of weeks in which many bar and restaurant owners said they were being forced out of business by the anti-smoking ordinances, the three towns temporarily lifted the bans. In mid-March, a smoking ban in public places will take effect throughout suburban Cook County in towns that haven't adopted their own ordinances.
The concept of the level playing field has been a big part of the argument against smoking bans. As it turns out, smokers are not that loyal to places where they may have frequented for years if they cannot light up while there. Instead, they will head to another town where smoking is allowed. So as long as a restaurant or bar or bowling alley that allows smoking is within a reasonable drive, the playing field will not be level.
Whether there is a level playing field for non-smokers does not seem to be much of a consideration. In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the rights of people to engage in unhealthy behavior that they know jeopardizes their health -- it's just a choice they've made. We've heard about the rights of business owners to operate free from government interference. And we've heard about smoking bans being a page right out of the totalitarian playbook.
But there seems to be only one choice for non-smokers. If you don't like going to a place where people smoke, you can stay away. Don't go the restaurant or the bowling alley or the bar where people smoke -- you are free to make that choice. You don't have to work there. If you don't want your clothes to smell like an ashtray, stay away. If you don't want to be exposed to dangerous chemicals in the air, you can go to a movie.
Fact is, a lot of people made that choice a long time ago and decided not to go to places where someone a couple of feet away is fouling the air. I put myself in that category -- and I don't even consider myself a rabid anti-smoker. Over the years, I have liked many smokers a great deal. One of them, former Star business editor Jim Pecora, died of lung cancer about a month before the White Sox won the World Series, which would have made him ecstatically happy. He was a guy who loved life and it's sad he didn't get more of it.
I also think it's sad that workers in bars and restaurants, in calling for a level playing field last month, said they wanted smoking in their establishments so they could make a decent living.
"You want to be around that stuff?" I wondered. "Here is something that very possibly is affecting your health. But you'd rather take that risk?"
It's sad, this idea of a level playing field.
Tom Houlihan can be reached at (708) 802-8820 or thoulihan@starnewspapers.com
The same reason a "guy with a tiny ****" drives around in a dodge viper.
---I have the feeling it's totally about power and has little to do with real health concern--and they're already started on the next step--food, trans fats for example---
We kill over 40,000 people a year in automobile accidents. Should we ban the use of cars because they endanger the other guy?
Oh, wait, I don't live in China.
Gubmint needs to concentrate on defending the country, and leave all of us alone.
It constantly amazes me how they can be so concerned about health when they allow the killing of babies.
But .. they still keep imposing more and more taxes upon the smokers .. supposedly for the "childrens' programs" .. now .. how are they going to fun their programs ..??
As usual .. the dems never look at the consequences of anything they do.
FMCDH(BITS)
No matter what we think of Gay Rights, at least they stand up for themselves and ARE getting their rights.
Business owners and smokers just seem to think a ban could never happen to them, so they never stand up for our rights to smoke. I really feel sad about all the businesses that have closed because of the smoking bans, but if more business owners and especially the Restaurant Coalition would ban together to oppose these bans, things might have gone differently.
It's just that old thought "It will never happen to me." Then, when it does, it's usually to late to fight it.
Being gay is a greater health hazard than smoking..
That being said...Quitting smoking or never smoking has never saved a single life.
The only thing you can do is rearrange the timing of death.
It's still one to a customer..
Just curious. When a state passes a smoking ban in all restaurants and bars, does the total money spent in these places really go down? Unless people are crossing a state line to a place where they can smoke, I find it difficult to think there is much net impact.
Although maybe smokers will just buy a bottle and drink at home rather than in a bar. Hey, saveing money and cutting down on DWI at the same time! Works for everybody except the bar owners and workers.
Don't make it personal.
Haven't seen any statistics, but I would venture to guess that people who like to smoke at bars and restaurants do go out less when smoking is banned. Since they've been really cracking down on serving alcohol to minors, the number of minors caught drinking in bars has gone down - they aren't spending their money in the bar. They're still drinking, in homes and wherever else they gather (like out in the woods), but they aren't giving any money to bars.
Same thing is likely with smoking - people who like to smoke when they eat and drink will still smoke when they eat and drink - just not at restaurants and bars. They still buy food, but not prepared food in restaurants; still buy alcohol, but not mixed drinks at the bar.
Given the large number of jurisdictions that have passed laws of this type, I'm sure there is some hard data available. But I don't recall seeing any. Odd. Both sides seem to talk in generalities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.