When you argue against enacting a statewide smoking ban, you're asking for trouble. Sure, the discussion might remain polite, but in some eyes, you become a tool of tobacco companies, a lout who doesn't care about the welfare of our children or a fool oblivious to the rising cost of health care in this country.
None of those labels apply to me - or to 98% of the people opposed to the idea. I know smoking is bad, I know it's addictive and I know it is deadly. In 1987, I watched my paternal grandfather, a lifelong smoker, die a horrible, lingering death from lung cancer. In response, my parents became very anti-smoking, and just as predictably, I then took up the habit. I quit smoking in 2006, and three years on, I'm still not cocky enough to promise that it's a lifelong achievement.
No, I agree with the ban's medical premise. I have two different objections:
I don't think the state has the right to regulate personal choices in the first place. But if you disagree with me and think the ban is important for the public good, then you must be left puzzled by Madison's logic. Smoking is bad, so bad that the state feels compelled to act against it. So do we ban it outright? Do we prohibit the sale of cigarettes inside the state line? Do we at the very least tax it out of existence, instead of keeping smokers on the hook and looking at the vice tax as plain ol' revenue?
No. Instead, Madison puts forth a plan to ban smoking in public, at places like restaurants and taverns. Their good health thus protected, Wisconsinites will be free to consume their nightly beers and buffalo wings in comfort.
To me, it seems like more of a media stunt than honest lawmaking.
More practically, I object to the timing of the bill. Twenty years ago, this would have had a drastic impact on Wisconsin. Now, why bother? In 2005, as a pack-a-day smoker, I took over as general manager of a hotel. One of the first things I did was to eliminate smoking in public areas and the majority of guest rooms. Why? Because it's the 21st century, and the age of the smoker is at an end. It made no financial sense to cater to a market that had been pushed out of existence.
The majority of Wisconsin businesses already have adapted to the times, law or no law. Those proprietors who still allow smoking aren't being stubborn; they know their clientèle, and they know that banning smoking means running the risk of closing their doors for good.
While I'm certain the legislation will pass on Wednesday, I see no point in a law that the market, on its own, has made largely redundant. And in these economic times, I can't fathom a reason to toy with small business owners struggling to weather the storm.
To me, it makes as much sense as lighting up a cigarette in the first place.
Published writer, compulsive reader, Old School Whovian, Match Game enthusiast, NKOTB fan, data hoarder, and - surprisingly, given that list - married with four kids. Welcome to my take on life, fatherhood, entertainment, and whatever strikes my fancy. Enjoy!
It's been three years for us, too, and I still have the occasional craving. It passes within seconds, but in those seconds, it always amazes me how strong the urge is. It's a powerful addiction. I suppose these urges will pass eventually, but my Dad hasn't smoked for 30 years, and he told me that the other day he was in the garage tinkering with something, and reached up to his shirt pocket to pull out his pack. Yikes!
ReplyDeleteI have been a none smoker now for maybe 15 years, lost track as to when I really did stop. I still dream, dream of those sticks, it is a hard habit to stop, and to be sure it would be easy to pick up again....Maybe when I'm 80 :)
ReplyDeleteI stopped smoking in 2001, when I found out I was pregnant with Parker.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I've had no desire to smoke since.
And you know, you've made some very valid points here.
Not only that, I am very anti, 'government making decisions for us.'