In the last week or so I’ve been repeatedly reminded that my opinion is in the minority around here. Public smoking bans – a standard of civilization in much of our country and in many other countries across the world – seem to be the height of controversy in the Heart of Illinois. No local political candidate wants to touch the issue. A snarky and scientifically retarded local columnist heaps disdain upon the idea and compares environmental tobacco smoke to perfume.
Five and a half years ago, our country declared perpetual war and carried out the biggest reorganization of the federal government since the New Deal. Why? Because terrorists killed 3000 people.
Cigarette smoking kills almost half a million Americans EVERY YEAR. Environmental tobacco smoke kills somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. Every year, ETS wracks up a death toll 10 to 20 times that of Al Qaeda on 9/11.
What’s our response to this in Central Illinois? We twidle our thumbs and do nothing, accepting chemical assault as just another facet of our society. We make jokes about it. We pass the buck. We hem and haw about property rights and personal choice while a minority are allowed to poison the air that we breath and dictate the choices of the majority. We become enablers for a destructive addiction and complicit in the death it causes.
We see the smoke … and ignore the fire.
5 responses so far ↓
1
Vonster
// Apr 5, 2007 at 10:52 am
We don’t really so much disagree with you on the smoking issue. I’m about to quit myself. It’s that we don’t buy the ETS data which is purely theoretical.
2
Jennifer
// Apr 5, 2007 at 11:17 am
Knight,
I have been debating commenting on this issue because I feel I lack knowledge about the issue. I am a non-smoker and really hate being around smoke, so I feel that, uhhhm, clouds my vision. So this is totally my gut-reaction opinion:
I disagree with the whole minority vs. majority argument. Being in the majority does not make one right.
Nevertheless, I do think it’s interesting that people bring up “rights;” I definitely think one person’s rights stop where another’s begin. Furthermore, while a restaurant might be owned by a private owner, it is open to the public and non-smokers should be able to go to any public venue with the expectation of breathing non-smoke filled air.
How are bars and restaurants any different than most workplaces, government buildings and airplanes? (Excuse my ignorance, but I really don’t know if it is illegal to smoke in those places, or just forbidden (by self imposed rules). Some say, if you don’t like smoke, don’t go there, don’t work there, but how does that explain most places being non-smoking? Rarely does one “have to” fly, one can always get another job. I just don’t get how the reasoning that it’s okay to ban smoking in most places, but not in bars and restaurants.
My gut reaction to the whole debate is that it’s a matter of consideration, why would anyone think their need to smoke should come before everyone else’s need to breathe clean air? I don’t see laws against smoking in public places as curtailing anyone’s rights; the person can still smoke, just not in that particular place.
3
Brian A. Graham
// Apr 5, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Is your opinion in the minority? There is a way to find out. There will soon be another election (there is ALWAYS another election) and I’m sure someone out there would be willing to pass petitions around and get enough signatures to put a binding referendum on the ballot.
As a former U.S. History teacher, has there EVER been a reform which has been passed by those in favor of the status quo? Abolitionism, women’s right to vote, the abolishment of child labor, abolishment of lynchings, the 40 hour work week, or the progressive income tax?
Even with the massive dollars of lobbying and advertising from Big Tobacco, the majority of Americans do not smoke. I bet a citywide referendum to ban smoking indoors would pass. Why should the other side have “All the fun” when it comes to putting measures on the ballot?
4
knightindragonland
// Apr 5, 2007 at 5:22 pm
My opinion is in the minority in the local blogosphere. A recent Daily Times web poll also was largely against a ban – I believe it was a 70-30 margin. Those online polls are easily skewed, but it gives some indication of the local sentiment.
At this point, with a ban halfway through the state legislature, even I am willing to wait a little bit and see if the state-wide ban falls into place. That would be a better situation than piecemeal local bans. However, I do wish someone on the local level would come out and say that they are committed to seeing a local public smoking ban through if the statewide ban fails.
5
Brian A. Graham
// Apr 5, 2007 at 10:09 pm
We are in agreement. To the best of my knowledge, the next election that a referendum could be placed is Feb 2008. The state should have acted or not by then. One should look no farther than the issue and political campaigns run by the late Paul Wellstone to see how opinions can change. Or you can look at the rise of the GOP in the 1970s or their use of referenda on social issues.
Keep agitating on public health issues. Your side won’t get out any other way.
Leave a Comment