In Defense of Smokers

This is a full-length column which may or may not have appeared in today's paper.

[T]he new Paganism will tend, not to punish, but to restrain with fetters; to prevent action, to impose coercive bonds.” - Hilaire Belloc

To illustrate Belloc's point: in many states the right of patrons to smoke in bars and restaurants has been abolished. Obviously this move is inimical to the constitutional right to pursue happiness—that is, property—upon which this country was founded. It is the right of the owner of a particular establishment to determine what his patrons may do therein; if a customer is repulsed by smoking, he should find alternative arrangements for dinner and drinks.

Again, this is readily apparent, and I need hardly mention the foolishness of trading liberty for pleasantries. Applying this principle into perpetuity, anti-smoking puritans should warmly embrace a totalitarian regime which would remove all annoyances—save that of freedom, which they do not esteem.

In an effort to fully disclose my own biases to the reader, I must confess that I have an affinity for tobacco. I am not dependent on it, and can go for weeks at a time without enjoying it. The prohibition of smoking within certain establishments which I frequent would be a mild nuisance, insufficient to cause me to make alternative arrangements.

My allegiance to smokers is twofold. First, as a libertarian, I loathe the protrusion of governmental hands wherein they have no place. I was philosophically opposed to smoking bans even before I became a casual smoker. Second, I have friends and acquaintances who smoke; I feel their designation as pariahs to be repulsive. Smokers are not criminals; nor should they be treated as such.

The myth of the danger of secondhand smoking has been debunked by no less than the World Health Organization. Yet time and again smokers are chastised for their behavior. The irony is particularly delicious when the screed bellows from the gut of one especially rotund. For while smoking is certainly not good for one's health, neither is a steady diet of chocolate chip cookies and soda pop. Indeed, 2001 data suggests that a full 21 percent of our nation is obese, making America, to quote Lewis Black, “the fattest group of f___s on the planet.”

Nor is the threat of secondhand obesity insignificant. Anyone who has watched someone waddle down the street has doubts about the reaction time of that big-boned body. Excessively fat people make worse drivers than their slimmer siblings, even if they aren't eating Big Macs whilst attempting to navigate the roads.

My point is not to lambast fat people, though if smokers merit ire for falling prey to an addictive product, surely that ire should be doubled for those who cannot blame nicotine for their “addiction”. I merely note that we have a tendency to insufficiently point fingers at all behavior which may be partially self-destructive by instead creating scape goats of the smoking crowd.

If I may return to Belloc's original point, our increasingly Pagan society seems to have lost the grasp between behaviors which are unpleasant and those which are immoral. The smoking of a cigarette—or a cigar, if one prefers—is no more immoral per se than eating a cookie for dessert—that it becomes so when abused is irrelevant. Should we similarily ban burgers and shakes so that they are not likewise abused?

It is always good practice to refrain from unnecessarily annoying other people, but righteous indignation should be saved for those who deserve it. Instead of scowling, try smiling at a passing smoker. Maybe even go so far as to bum a smoke. I promise you that one won't kill you.