Chicago Smoking Ban

There has been a big media push in the last couple of weeks for the city of Chicago to ban smoking in all restaurants and bars. I feel that passing this law or similar laws is not only a big mistake, but is another step in government's interference with individual rights. Such laws are not about protecting the population as they claim, but they're actually another means of putting control into the hands of the corporate aliens that run our local governments.

Let's look at the proposed smoking ban. First let me tell you that I'm not a smoker. I've quit 35 years ago and have not touched a single cigarette since. I don't particularly like secondhand smoke but I dislike stupid laws even more. Most of the restaurants and bars involved are not owned by the city. Essentially, they are privately owned places with public access. That being the case, the restaurant or bar owner should be the only one to say whether or not to allow smoking on his/her premises. You, as a consumer, don't have to frequent a restaurant if you're against its smoking policy. The restaurant or bar owner is in a better position to make this decision than some politician who has no idea of the conditions and clientele of the establishment. For example, a restaurant owner can allow smoking but use one or more ionic air purifiers to filter the air in the smoking section. In such a case it is possible that the air in the smoking section would be cleaner than polluted city air outside. Under these circumstances, it would be hard to evoke the secondhand smoke argument.

I sometimes go out with friends who smoke and sit in a restaurant's smoking section. Most of the restaurants I've been to have large rooms allotted for their smokers, so I hardly even smell the secondhand smoke. I doubt very strongly that sitting in a restaurant's smoking section for one hour every two or three months is going to be a significant threat to my health. In fact, it could be that small amounts of toxin from the secondhand smoke may help improve my immune system against cigarette pollutants. Then I could argue that a smoking ban would be detrimental to my immune system and would actually be increasing my chances of getting cigarette related diseases.

Ten years ago I worked for a large insurance company. They decided not to let employees smoke in their building. This is as it should be. It's their building and if you want to work for them, you should either give up smoking or smoke outside. In my opinion, this is the only way smoking issues should be resolved: by the property owner and not the government. This was ten years ago. By now the owners of Chicago's public places should have already made up their minds about how to handle smoking in their establishments.

Even if secondhand smoke is as deadly as they claim, which I seriously doubt, it can't hurt you if you stay away from the places that allow smoking. You're only exposed if you want to be. So why a new law? The more laws the more federal and local governments can exert control over our lives. The more frustrated we become. They are conquering us one issue at a time. Practically any law can be passed in the name of public safety. Tomorrow they could be banning french fries because they contain too much saturated fat that causes a significantly elevated risk for heart attack.

The next step in the smoking battle will be to make cigarettes illegal. They've just about went as far as they can raising cigarette taxes. Now when they ban cigarettes, we'll see a resurgence of street gangs shooting each other trying to gain control of the lucrative underground cigarette racket.

If you think that Chicago politicians know what they're doing, let me relate what happened a little over ten years ago. Because there were some deaths due to carbon monoxide poisoning, the politicians, in their infinite wisdom, passed a law mandating every home to have a carbon monoxide detector by October 1st, 1994. Maybe this law was passed in a genuine effort to save lives or it could have been the result of some deal made with the First Alert Company. In any case, the carbon monoxide detectors were new technology and quite error prone. Because of threats of fines, many people complied with the law. Then a funny thing happened. By December 20, 1994, the Chicago fire department had logged some 8,500 calls from carbon monoxide detector alarms, and found that 86% of them turned out to be false alarms! Then, on December 21, 1994, Chicago experienced a temperature inversion which led to a smog problem. All hell broke loose: more than 1,800 calls were made to "911" within 24 hours, almost all of which turned out to be false alarms. Since then, even though the law may still be on the books, no one mentions it or tries to enforce it. Carbon monoxide detectors work much better now. I don't think too many people have them for fear of false alarms.

I have come to believe the word "politician" is synonymous with "dumb ass". If we continue to let them try to save us from the hazards of the world around us, all our remaining freedoms will surely be lost.