Here goes…

Full disclosure: I smoke. And Carey is right. The civil rights argument is totally specious. Endangering someone’s health without their consent is not a civil right. There is ample, irrefutable scientific evidence that second-hand smoke poses serious health risks. End of story. This is not a civil rights issue; it is a matter of public health policy.

Here in Chicago, our ban covers all indoor areas as well as all outdoor restaurant seating and most bar patios. Initially, I thought the bar patio restriction was excessive, but I can appreciate the point.

For example: remember the days when restaurants had smoking and non-smoking sections (yes, I was born in the 70s)? The absurdity of it! Here you are tucking into a sandwich and the only thing separating you from a table of people smoking a few feet away in an enclosed space is maybe a velvet rope or partial barrier. It does nothing to insulate you from second-hand smoke. (The funny thing was even back then, THE SMOKING SECTION HAD RESTRICTIONS AGAINST PIPES AND CIGARS! Why? Cigarette SMOKERS found the smell offensive!)

The same principal holds true with restaurant patios. The smoke travels with the wind. It does not magically disappear straight up into the stratosphere as many outdoor smoking advocates would have you believe. And even if — for argument’s sake — the breeze sufficiently diluted the smoke to the point where it posed negligible health risk to someone a few tables over, the acrid scent is unpleasant at best, and people should not have to be subjected to it while dining or sitting on the lawn at an open air concert, or in the stands at a ballgame, etc.

Part of the problem is simple behavior modification. I smoke. Yet I’m now so accustomed to not smoking indoors that to see ashtrays on tables in restaurants, or outside an elevator (as I did last time I was in Las Vegas) seems really bizarre, almost appalling. It’s really not such an inconvenience once you just get used to it. And if I were ever to find myself on an airplane with an ashtray in the armrest, that plane is not taking off with me on it. :)

There are sensible limits, however. Banning people from smoking — be it a cigarette, cigar or pipe — while walking down a sidewalk seems a little draconian. But guess what? I can’t think of any logical argument to oppose such an ordinance, because there quite simply isn’t one. It would be sound public health policy. (I’m picturing Carey standing at a bus stop gasping for air because he’s standing down wind of someone smoking. While his theatrics would probably amuse me, I’m hardly qualified to gauge whether or not his coughing and wheezing are grossly exaggerated for effect or genuine.)

One alternative to a blanket ban that I do think would be worth considering is to license a limited number of establishments (bars only) to permit smoking. This gives people an option. If most of my friends do not smoke, and they choose to go to a smoke-free bar on a Saturday, I’m going to join them. But I would wager that the bars with smoking permits would generally do more business. It would be an interesting experiment in free-market capitalism.

That said, the bottom line is that there are no redeeming qualities to smoking. With the clear exception of that sexy temptress in the Colbert video, smoking is not glamorous. It stains your teeth, makes you smell, ruins your skin, causes innumerable diseases, affects the health of those around you, and it’s costly both to the smoker and to society (taxpayers spend millions to subsidize treatment of smoking-related illnesses). Smoking should frankly be illegal. This is coming from a smoker!

Of course, the same goes for alcohol and fattening foods, but we know how well that sort of prohibition works. Still smoking is the only one of these health hazards that also affects the health of innocent third-parties (except for drunk driving, which is already illegal).

So let’s cut the crap. Even the people who smoke and who are so outraged at the loss of their “personal freedom” to smoke in public places (guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to be sure) probably do not even smoke in their OWN homes.

At 6a.m. this morning I put on my parka, boots and stocking hat, and stood in my pajamas outside on a balcony nine stories up with a 15-degree windchill (it was also sleeting) to smoke a cigarette because we don’t want to stink up our home. I’ll risk pneumonia before I’ll smoke in my own home. Now if that isn’t the height of absurdity, tell me what is?

Maybe I’ll just spare myself the hassle and quit?

@haloed - Thanks for the kind words, although your last sentence struck me as a tad condescending. 

@davidngo - Theoretically, I completely agree. I was not at all pleased when Chicago and my beloved NY were forced into smoke-freedomness. That’s what licenses are for. If private establishments must have a license serve liquor, then why not allow those same establishments to have a smoking license? Let the patrons decide. As you pointed out, if people don’t want to go to a smoke-filled bar, well then surely there is a business opportunity for bars that have a non-smoking policy, right? Totally agree. But I think this issue is not so clear cut. Is it also ok to have crack bars? Should the government regulate health-related issues, or should people be entirely free to do as they please? Maybe we don’t need an FDA? If I want to sell children’s toys made with lead paint, and there’s a market for them, why should the government interfere?