Because You Never Asked

     (I put this essay up on my website in 2006. This essay and the one to follow, called “Tobacco: The Big Trick”, were written in 1994. Since that time, government has intervened in many states in an effort to curtail the tobacco habit. Laws have been enacted forbidding the practice in many places, including privately owned bars and restaurants. In spite of my abhorrence for the nicotine habit --- something I consider one of the great tragedies of human existence --- my reticence to go along with such drastic governmental interference is patent in this essay. It is not often that a chicken soup philosopher can feel satisfaction for being incorrect, but this could be considered one of those moments. Some of our biggest cities have put such laws into effect without problem, a result I’m ecstatic about in spite of what could be considered a mistaken attitude in this essay. Here is my take on the issue from more than a decade ago. Some recent events have led to the birth of a new essay on the subject, called “Social Engineering“. It should be read together with the 2 essays written more than a decade ago. Unlike the first two essays in this series, it will be found in the “Propaganda” section of the Table of Contents. )

     There was recently a congressional hearing dealing with the impact of tobacco use in our society. During the proceedings, seven tobacco company CEO’s were seated together fielding questions from committee members. The issue as to whether or not nicotine is an addictive substance was collectively put to the well-tailored, impeccably barbered corporate panel. Without hesitation, and with a rhythmic cadence worthy of a smooth running train, they each unabashedly answered, “no”, “no”, “no” --- right on down the line. As I watched this fine tuned performance, strangely enough, a hypothetical vision of the war crime trials at Nuremberg insinuated itself into my imagination. There they are, Hitler, Goebbels, Hess, Eichmann, etc., all in their perfectly groomed military mode, medals and ribbons, arrogant and defiant. A black robed judge leans forward and asks, “did any of you have anything against the Jews?” One by one, crisply, cleanly, the replies reverberate in the room --- “no”, “no”, “no” --- right on down the line.

     Do you believe them?

     Never having been a smoker, I decided to do some research. I asked about ten smokers if they thought nicotine was addictive. These people were obviously not being paid to lie about anything, their unanimous response being “yes”. Did I really have to ask? Have you ever noticed smokers when they are caught without their precious weed? Have you ever noticed them clinging to their packs and lighters like security blanket teddy bears? Have you ever noticed the ritualistic movements of their unencumbered moments; the search for the pack, the click of the lighter, the relief from that first deep drag?

     I am not a prude or temperance person. Whatever “vice” a person might have, so long as it doesn’t effect somebody else’s pursuit of happiness, is their personal struggle or advantage, their decision to make. If cigarettes were smokeless, I couldn’t care less about your nicotine addiction. Unfortunately, this is not the case and smokers should respect one’s desire to be free of the smoking environment, just as people shouldn’t play their music too loud, or dribble a basketball in an apartment above someone. Civility, good manners, proper upbringing, etc., is how such behavior should be shaped. But now the government is getting involved. How far should they go?

     Notwithstanding the opinions of the corporate seven dwarfs mentioned above, it is safe to say that smoking has negative implications for the overall health panorama of the country; people get sick, costs are incurred, ergo, the government has a legitimate interest in all this. When does this intervention begin to become “draconian” (isn’t that a wonderful word?) and overly intrusive?

     The tobacco habit is not a hoola-hoop fad. It has been an integral part of the human experience for thousands of years, and not as some kind of cock-fighting underworld or voodoo cult, but as a basic part of one’s daily routine for millions of people. It has become woven into the fabric of human existence. Trying to rid the fabric of this unattractive, splayed thread, will be a tedious, painstaking task demanding much patience. Trying to do too much, too fast, might rip the garment seriously and do more harm than good.

     I have no problem with the government restricting this sickness (let’s call it what it really is) in either publicly owned or extremely public places like train stations, subways, airports, court houses, stadiums, bus stations, public schools, hospitals, theaters, motor vehicle buildings, city halls, museums, etc. When it comes to necessary transport that we all must use, like planes, buses, ferries, shuttles, limousines and the like, I find no fault with government interference into these privately run businesses because we are all forced to use these services and the non-smoker, unavoidably put into a closed space with their nicotine dependent brothers and sisters, should not have the tobacco environment thrust upon them. I am hesitant to include the privately owned work place under this umbrella, but we all have to work and perhaps the work place should be free of this smoky intrusion as well. I’m willing to discuss the matter. Fire safety might be a concern in some privately owned places, such as the movies or garment industry. Fine ---

     --- However, I must protest the over zealous, Pat Robertson-like intrusions being made or contemplated by government in the name of the anti-smoking crusade. Privately owned restaurants and bars doing business in enclosed spaces are not what I’d call “public places”, which is what they are being referred to in a number of anti-smoking laws. Nobody is being forced to attend these areas. If you don’t like the environment in one of these places, go spend your money somewhere else. I don’t say this in defense of “smoker’s rights”, which I don’t think exists, but in defense of one of the pillars of the American socio-economic identity, that being property rights.

     What about property rights?

     One of the most overrated concepts in the American mind set is that “it is my property and I can do what I want with it.” The plain truth is that there’s probably more you can’t do than can with it. Try having a rock concert in your backyard, or start raising a few oinky, stinky pigs and see how far you get. Such restrictions, however, are usually designed to limit the impact of what you are doing on somebody else’s life. When privately owned businesses operating on their own enclosed properties decide to allow smoking on their premises, I don’t see any justification for government intrusion. Sure, there are already health codes and safety regulations, but there is a huge difference between protecting someone from involuntarily contracting food poisoning, or burning in a fire, and protecting someone from knowingly and willingly chipping away at their own health over a lifetime. What’s next --- “Diet Police” confiscating hot fudge sundaes from fat people?

     By writing this essay, I hope I’ve established an honest degree of open mindedness and fair play with regard to the tobacco habit, thus giving me a bit more credibility amongst the nicotine freaks. I say this because the party is about to end. Which brings me to --- see essay “Tobacco: The Big Trick”.