Plum Crazy

Jesus...this screed [ed. Tom Sawyer's post regarding government encroachment on things like smoking and eating fatty foods] is worse than the gun control one. It's poorly-reasoned, sloppily written, and too damn long.

My dad used to say "your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose." If a smoker chooses to give themselves cancer in their own home, that's their (very poor) choice. But when you smoke in public, you're giving cancer to others.

Really, now...how self-centered do you have to be to argue that an entire roomful of strangers should accept being exposed to toxic fumes because it would INCONVIENIENCE you too much to drag your loathsome, spotty behind outside?

First in response to Tom's mentioning potential Twinkie taxation, let me say that I think taxing Twinkies is redundant. Eating a piece of plastic filled with foam is already a form of taxation. I hate Twinkies. Now Devil Dogs...

Now onto Don's comment. The point Tom was making about the smoking is regarding private establishments. Should I choose to allow someone to smoke in my living room, that is my right, even if other people visiting my house would prefer I did not. The other people can always leave the room, refuse to visit me, or deal with the second-hand smoke.

On the other hand, if I wish to tell someone lighting up in my living room to drag his/her loathsome, spotty behind outside, that is also my right, regardless if he/she objects. The smoker can decide to shun me from thenceforth or put up with my decision.

If I own a restaurant, whose decision is it whether or not smokers are allowed? Mine, as the proprietor, or the government's? The same rights are given to the objecting parties in either case (the choice to lump it or to leave). If I decide to lump it, didn't I make a choice which says that the convenience of eating at that restaurant is greater to me than the inconvienence of inhaling second-hand smoke? Aren't I accepting exposure to toxic fumes voluntarily?

If enough non-smokers were to make the opposite choice, you'd get restaurants banning smoking voluntarily. The thing is that most people don't care enough to refuse to frequent a restaurant because there are smokers. There are enough of us (non-smokers) to actually effect such a change, but rather than do it, we seem to prefer making the government do it for us. That strikes me as being either defeatist or lazy.

I don't know what was wrong with having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. That seemed to me to be a completely reasonable compromise. Those who don't wish to be exposed to second-hand smoke could avoid it while still dining at that restaurant. Those who wish to smoke could do so while still dining at that restaurant. The ban in New York City on smoking in restaurants, bars, and clubs has had the effect of driving people out into New Jersey. More specifically, Hoboken. Gee, thanks, Mayor Bloomberg. On the one hand, commerce has increased here. On the other, it was already too freaking crowded in restaurants after work and on weekends and parking was a big enough nightmare.

Having said all that, there was a time when it was simply considered amazingly uncouth to smoke in public. Smokers censored themselves, refusing to inflict their dirty little habit on non-smokers. There were special clubs where smokers would go and light up. But in polite company, tobacco was a no-no. That is, IMO, the way it should be. Smokers should stop insisting that they have the right to impose their choice on those who made no such choice, since those who made no such choice are in no way negatively impacting smokers. There is no right to do whatever you want wherever and whenever you want.

There should be a recognition of the impact of one's behavior on others. I just don't think it's up to the government to enforce it. Although I don't find it particularly surprising that people want them to. In general, people want a certain level of civility in society, and when it is not voluntarily forthcoming, they will seek other means to bring it about. The easiest is to have the government legislate it. A little less self-absorption would have gone a long way towards avoiding things like political correctness, zero tolerance, and smoking bans. Ultimately we broadly have no one to blame but ourselves.