…but, here it goes anyway. I’ve always been a bigger fan of begging forgiveness rather than asking approval.
Anyway, my second op-ed column got published this past Wednesday in our local newspaper. I thought they would post it online like they did my first one, but it hasn’t showed up yet, so I’m just going to post it here myself. Let’s all hope I don’t get in trouble for copy infringement!
New Albany’s Great Debate – The Smoking Ban
My first cigarette was smoked sometime during my fifteenth year. It was a stolen Merit Menthol Light that I smoked while holding at arms length outside my bedroom window, hoping the smell and the smoke wouldn’t linger in my room.
Between then and July of 2007, I was a sometimes regular smoker (mostly through college), a sometimes social smoker (mostly in bars), and a sometimes stress smoker (mostly after Thanksgiving dinners). I liked Camel Lights, soft pack.
I’ve been fortunate never to step into the realm of chain-smoking, or need a cigarette badly enough and often enough that a carton purchase was more necessary than buying a pack. I do remember the pleasure and artistry of smoking. The million different ways you can hold your cigarette and ash it; the way you can use it to emphasize whatever it is you’re discussing; the way you can light it with a match or, even better, a Zippo; and what’s more gratifying than that first cigarette with a cold beer or a cup of coffee?
It’s been over a year since my last cigarette and I’ll never say never about smoking another one. Just a few Sundays ago, after watching back-to-back episodes of Mad Men, all I could think about was lighting up. I see both sides of the smoking ban-the filter and the butt.
And here’s my but: even as someone who can value the fulfilling-albeit fleeting-effects of the perfect smoke at the perfect time, don’t we want to live in a city that promotes the health of the overall community?
As a mayor, don’t you want to govern a progressive city? A city that leads by example and says that the physical welfare of our whole community is more important than the economic demands of a handful of business owners?
You can pull research and resources that validate both sides of this debate. A simple Google search will return studies to prove and disprove the actual adverse effects of secondhand smoke. There are also studies that show little to no effect on the economic impact on businesses in the cities where smoking bans are enforced.
And then there are the smokers. I can hear the mental chorus now, “What about our freedom? Our right to light up! Keep your legislative hands off my pack of smokes!”
It’s the defiant cry of people who are tired of being led by a government that wants to control their every move (even though they often look to the same government to control their rising health care costs.)
Here’s my but to this argument: haven’t we been duped? Duped into believing that a cigarette should be fought for as one of our basic rights-a product that has been proven over and over to cause slow, horrific deaths, low birth rates, and a constant stream of unaffordable health problems.
The tobacco industry, arguably the most inherently evil corporate organization during the last century, was also the most genius marketing force ever to hit our capitalistic shores. They took one of our basic psychological shortcomings, our nature for oral fixation, and fed it a stick stocked with damaging and crushingly addictive chemicals.
They made it cool from the beginning. Who didn’t want to be (or date) a Marlboro man? And when women took the corner offices, the tobacco industry was the first to let us know how far we had come (although, they still called us babies). They watched quietly as smoking habits were passed from one generation to the next and reinforced their dirty little secrets by promoting cigarettes to the younger generations with candy cigarettes and cartoon advertising.
This is an industry that profited on promoting cigarettes to children when they knew it was beyond harmful to the child’s lifelong health.
And now, the biggest triumph of all: they’ve convinced their involuntarily loyal customers to fight for them, “No matter how it affects me, my children, or the people around me; LET ME SMOKE!”
I don’t want to preach to people and tell them they shouldn’t smoke. I say, “Smoke up all you want.” But, don’t argue that it should be legal to do it in the restaurant where I’m trying to enjoy a meal, or behind the counter of my local convenient store. A smoking ban doesn’t limit your right to smoke; it protects my right to keep your smoke off of my-and my child’s-clothes, hair, and lungs.
The smoking ban appears to be an almost dead issue at the time. The mayor has vetoed it and the committee to review it is slow moving. Maybe it’s just not our time yet. Every city progresses at its own speed. Small steps, right? First we bring it in front of council. We debate it until we’re blue in the face. And eventually, we choose healthy progressive measures to advance our community instead of setting them afire.

September 27, 2008 at 9:08 pm |
Amy, I enjoyed your article and see that it matches what the media says about smokers and tobacco. What you don’t seem to get though is that smokers are truly not crying about smoking everywhere they want as the anti smokers would like the public to believe. Many non-smokers have, in fact, joined this fight against smoking bans, for it goes far beyond the issue of health and the comfort of people who do not like the smell of cigarette smoke. Perhaps you are still the girl leaning out the window, attempting to hide the smell of your Merit from your parents. Not all of us see this as a public health issue because, Amy, I ask you to name one person who has ever died solely from their exposure to shs. Why then, we might ask, is it necessary to have the government storm the bar and take over the choices that people make with their lives. Why can’t those who abhor smoking simply go to non-smoking places? Why do you need legislation to stop smoking in bars where the owner and his customers choose to allow smoking? Is it left over from those days when you were leaning out the window hiding your Merit from your mom? A progressive city and a progressive mayor does not simply jump on the ban wagon simply because everyone is doing it. A progressive leader is one who looks at an issue like this one from all sides and makes a decision that considers the needs of all the people he leads. You may not like that decision, but some of us applaud your mayor for having the guts to stand up against the trolls that roll into town and demand smoking bans, no matter who it may harm.
September 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm |
“… trolls that roll into town and demand smoking bans, no matter who it may harm.”
Just wondering, who a smoking ban has ever harmed? I don’t actually recall any bars or restaurants closing down as a result of a smoking ban. Ah … the tobacco companies!! That’s the ticket!!
September 28, 2008 at 9:27 am |
Sandy, you may not like to hear this, but over 1200 bars in Ireland alone have closed due to smoking bans yet there has never been ANYONE harmed by second hand smoke. Too many to count here in the U.S. Everywhere there is a ban people are losing everything they have worked very hard for. All one has to do to find the data is look! No one in the anti-smoking establishment wants you to know this so it is blamed on the economy or anything else they think you will believe. Ask an ex-owner what the contributing factor is. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation owns most of the shares of Johnson & Johnson. They have spent over 1 BILLION dollars in the past 30 years for propoganda and paid for studies to get a favorable result, also proven false, to put smoking and second hand smoke in the forefront of public health to make it socially unacceptable. All of the data put forth has been proven false, even the surgeon general’s report has been ruled null and void by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, there is nothing stopping them from continuing to use the false propoganda and lies to further their agenda. After all, tobacco is the main competition for J & J’s smoking cessation products and to win one must beat the competition. Also, the numbers they spew of deaths due to smoking are greatly aggagerated because someone at 35 years of age who dies in a car accident but smokes in included in these numbers as is an 89 year old who dies of natural causes, they still list it as a premature death because that individual smokes. We as a world need to stop letting the big pharmaceutical companies run our lives for their own greed and see them for what they are! Yes they make needed products, but if they can spend that much to wipe out the competition, how much more are citizens and insurance companies paying for products than need be?
September 28, 2008 at 9:52 pm |
The tobacco companies are not hurt by smoking bans. In fact, the rate of smoking in Ireland has gone up 2% since the smoking ban. Adult smoking rates have remained largely unchanged for the past five years. In Ohio in the year since its smoking ban, Over 350 family owned businesses have closed due to the smoking ban, 5400 hospitality workers have lost their jobs. In a state with high unemployment, hospitality workers claim the highest rate of unemployment. In the UK, pubs close at a record 7 per week, ending hundreds of years of a cultural icon. So, yes, smoking bans do hurt business, in Ohio and in all places where smoking bans are enacted. BTW, no lives have been saved where smoking bans exist, but last week a smoker was lynched and another strangled in bars in Uganda for smoking in a bar. Perhaps the health zealots are applauding bans, but smokers and non-smokers worldwide who value freedom are FINALLY gathering strength and numbers to stop the madness.
September 29, 2008 at 7:03 am |
I love that something I wrote has generated a conversation. And, my first thought was to stay out of the commentaries, but it doesn’t seem fair to let my one reader take all the heat. First, THANK YOU for reading my stuff. Whether you agree with me or not, I am grateful that people I don’t even know take the time to read what I write.
I purposely didn’t pull statistics, because as I stated you can find numbers for both sides of this argument:
Campaign for tobacco-free kids:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0144.pdf
GVSU Study: Smoking ban won’t hurt businesses, may help them:
http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/western/index.ssf/2008/05/as_state_lawmakers_try_to.html
OK Dept. of Health Report: Smoking ban has not hurt restaurant business:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080923_336_OKLA471802
(I could keep going with this list of links, but you get the point).
Another thing, I don’t think the standard for whether SHS causes death is a justifiable excuse to allow it in public places. The fact that it makes for an unpleasant dining environment is enough. And it does affect my health—I cough, my eyes get red, and it affects the way my food tastes.
And, Sheri, no this isn’t leftover from my days of leaning out my window hiding my cigarette from my mom. Trust me, I’ve had a lot of therapy to get over those days. A LOT. I’ve moved on to getting over stuff from my 20s at this point.
Also, I’m okay with a smoking ban that allows exceptions (private clubs, bars, casinos). As I wrote, we gotta start somewhere.
Thanks again for reading and commenting I hope just because you disagree with me, you don’t stop reading me! I have lots of opinions and I’m sure there will eventually be one that we agree on.