United Liberty

Indianapolis already has a limited smoking ban. For the most part, the only places you can smoke are bars which do not employ or allow entrance to anyone under the age of eighteen, smoke shops, and bowling alleys. Smoke Free Indy, an anti-smoking activist group, is leading the charge to strengthen the ban and remove pretty much all existing exemptions.

Proposal 371, which would extend the ban, passed out of committee on October 14. It will go before the entire City-County Council on October 26. Potentially adding some strength to their position, a report from the Institute of Medicine was released the next day which supports smoking bans as an effective tool in improving public health. The folks at libertarian-minded Reason published a response to the report on their blog which questions the strength of their conclusions and provides other good background material.

I think it’s pretty clear that smoking isn’t the greatest lifestyle choice to maximize longevity. Second-hand smoke (apparently also called “passive smoking”) also has an adverse impact on health. We can all make our choices about smoking and, in today’s anti-smoking world, spend most all of our time avoiding second-hand smoke if we choose to do so. Smoking is legal. Adults should be able to congregate in public places to smoke.

I wrote an article recently which focused on the anti-American nature of recently passed smoking bans in the California area. It was published in a Bay Area college newspaper.

The piece was responded to by an emotional and angry college professor, not a rare creature by any means, who complained about how tired he was of smokers “complaining” about not being able to smoke in public. It ended with ad hominem attacks accusing me of stupidity and ignorance and recommending that I take a high school level American Government course.

I’m used to that sort of vitriol, and since I pull no punches I don’t expect people to do it for me. The aspect that stood out was not the professor’s immaturity, but instead the fact that he had assumed that I was a smoker. In the article, I never mentioned the personal inconveniences of not being able to smoke in my favorite bar. This is because I never experienced them. I don’t smoke.

This professor assumed, unconsciously most likely, that my politics had the same narcissistic motivations that his has. I think smoking is disgusting. I’ve had many experiences where I’ve been on a date or an outing with a friend and felt my admiration for them dissipate once they pulled out a cigarette.