Public ban on smoking leaves many out in the cold

Nick  Degel

Managing Editor

 

For the last six months or so, I have been struggling to quit smoking cold turkey. It would be a logical assumption to say that someone in my position would be for the likely ban of smoking in bars and restaurants, once the Michigan State Senate-approved bill is passed by the House.

The only likely sticking point at this juncture would be disagreement on the possibility of exemptions for casinos and bingo halls.

But in the event that the state of Michigan joins the likes of New York and Maine, I can say whole-heartedly that I will not be smiling.

While no longer being able to smoke in my favorite bars and restaurants may help my attempt to quit in the long run, I do not like the idea of legislators deciding how people should live their lives.

Believe me, I know there are many more valid reasons to support a ban rather than reject it. It seems to be universally agreed that second-hand smoke is harmful to everyone. I can also empathise with non-smokers who would rather not deal with the smell of smoke on their clothes and in their noses while they eat.

But I still oppose a public ban on smoking and that, naturally, makes me self-centered.

I will agree to this because the argument against this ban is a relatively egotistical one something along the lines of “I thought this was America?”

However, I feel that in a place that essentially satisfies the vice, whether it’s overeating or drinking, there should be an anything goes mentality. My vice happens to be smoking so, naturally, I feel I have the right to light up as I relax in the company of friends in a public venue.

Smoking is dangerous and I in no way condone the activity, but we should carefully view the segregational implications of sending the smokers outside.

Like the two sides of fish bowl glass, a literal barrier will be created between smoker and non-smoker. The unhealthy, smelly people can kill themselves outside while everyone else seated comfortably can grip tightly to their barley and hops that are slowly killing them inside.

There is a double standard here. And, ultimately, isn’t everything killing us anyway?

In my lifetime I can venture to guess that eggs have gone from healthy to not healthy, and back again, at least seven or eight times. Not that I would necessarily compare smoking’s risk of lung cancer to an egg’s risk of high cholesterol, but you are not any more dead from one than the other if it finally catches up to you.

We make a lot of destructive decisions in our lives for no other reason than, well, we can. We live in a country where pushing the envelope is accepted and, often times, this rebellion is inspired by our personal agendas.

However, many will argue that my agenda to smoke around others is not only destructive to me. Again, second-hand smoke is dangerous and my bad habit is technically affecting the health of others.

It is not my goal to hurt others when I light up and, like I said, I’m really trying to quit.

But perhaps there is a more imminent threat at the local watering hole, namely the ex-body builder sitting next to you who had one too many Jagerbombs.

My second-hand smoke is affecting your health slowly while one wrong look at Baby Huey over there will negatively affect your immediate health.

The affects of excessive alcohol consumption are just as dangerous and include both a long and short term impact — whether it’s cirrhosis of the liver or a car accident caused by an impaired driver.

Individuals who cannot keep their drinking under control are as much of a threat to those around them as they are to themselves. Drinking is also more widely accepted than smoking, especially in the last few years.

Again, a double standard.

One day, in what will hopefully be the not-too-distant future, I will no longer consider myself a smoker and a public ban on the habit will not apply to me. But I will still harbor bitterness at the fact that if I wanted to smoke in public, I couldn’t.