Opinion
Something to chew on …
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
- The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
- The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
- Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
- Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Since its inception, backers of Madison’s draconian smoking ban have insisted the ordinance to be born out of a utopian concern for public health, namely as a means of preempting the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke. But a careful examination of the ordinance’s fine print reveals a frightful instance of overreaching on the City Council’s part, one that seemingly negates any such public health arguments.
The legislation, which goes into affect July 1, bans the smoking of cigarettes, cigars and pipes, but it also bans seemingly every form of unlit tobacco. Not only will patrons of Madison’s bar scene no longer be able to pay Joe Camel lip service, but those who choose to dip tobacco will have to leave their snuff in their pockets while those who chew on unlit cigars will have to lower their stogies from their mouths.
The number of Madisonians packing wads of dip while in bars is doubtlessly low, as is the percentage of people who chomp on unlit cigars. But these are perfectly legal acts and one must ask why they are being prohibited in the name of public health. Making the case for the seriously detrimental effects of second-hand smoke is difficult enough, but this board is confident in saying no one has ever gotten ill from second-hand dip or the mere sight of a tobacco product claiming its rightful spot as a fashion accessory.
The reality is that the smoking ban is either more poorly constructed than a Blue Moon without an orange or its backers have been intellectually dishonest about their intentions since its inception. Either scenario ought to be cause to reexamine the ordinance in its entirety and reconsider the very nature of this wanton assault on the libertarian values of Madison.
This conveniently overlooked layer of regulation alludes to the broader question of enforcement. Police have already indicated their unwillingness to enforce the main titular provisions of the “smoking” ban, and bar owners are scrambling to make changes in their establishments that will feint compliance, if nothing. A ban on dip is just another layer of regulation that limits the rights of patrons and owners toward an inconsistent policy end. The bottom line: the city of Madison shouldn’t concern itself with ordinances so impossible to enforce that their placement on the books will become a waste of ink.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
The ban outlaws chew too? Why haven't I seen this in any other newspapers?
Smoking is very smelly. It smells up my clothes. I'm glad to see it banned. Too bad for the tobbaco addicts.
I've never seen this anywhere else before. No credible newspaper has ever reported it. And it comes out first not in your news section, but in your editorial section? I'm sorry, Badger Herald, but do you really expect us to buy that you caught something that the city dailies, the TV news, and the Chamber of Commerce didn't catch? It might be possible, but this would involve a huge oversight from a whole lot of people.
If only we could ban annoying people who complain about everything.
People who don't bathe are smelly. They make me dry heave every time they walk by. Should they be banned from bars too?
"People who don't bathe are smelly. They make me dry heave every time they walk by. Should they be banned from bars too?"
They often are. Bars reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. If someone reeks, they'd probably not get service.
I'm pretty sure I already read that chew was in this ban before in the Badger Herald.
Poster 3: So basically the Herald's editorial writers shouldn't be allowed to do research, write insightful pieces or anything of the sort unless they tip off the dailies and their news department first? The editorial page is the most dignified portion of a newspaper, give these kids some credit for doing their homework and doing a nice job.
"They often are. Bars reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. If someone reeks, they'd probably not get service."
but notice, the BAR reserves that right. It was thier choice, not the gov telling them they cant serve people.
Poster 3: So basically the Herald's editorial writers shouldn't be allowed to do research, write insightful pieces or anything of the sort unless they tip off the dailies and their news department first? The editorial page is the most dignified portion of a newspaper, give these kids some credit for doing their homework and doing a nice job.
If you can't live without a smoke then you can go outside and feed your addiction. Deal.
"If you can't live without a smoke then you can go outside and feed your addiction. Deal."
I think you are missing the point. Most people have an issue with this because it should be the OWNERS right to choose if they want to allow smoking or not. It is our choice if we want to frequent a place that allows smoking or not. I am not a smoker, but I am 100% AGAINST this ban!
Usually, I would bark about this being another great example of a city trying to impose its views/wishes on others in the name of being "progressive," but in this case I do support a ban. While sympathetic to those that say it should be an owner's right to choose, when you're talking about smoke you're talking about something that is harmful to others. And while an argument can me made that you should not got to smoky bars if you don't want to inhale second-hand smoke, it doesn't seem appropriate that the actions of a few should determine what the actions of many should be.
As far as the chewing tobacco issue - if true - it seems odd that they would ban this. I'm a big investor in US Tobacco on the thesis that as these cities ban smoking, patrons will naturally turn towards chewing instead. As far as I'm concerned, whether someone chews or not should have no impact on others, and should not be banned.
^They will invent some sort of impact for that too. So pull your money out after ten years or so, I wouldn't view it as a long term investment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/10/wsmoke10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/10/ixworld.html
So how are things in your town?
France's National Library has airbrushed Jean-Paul Sartre's trademark cigarette out of a poster of the chain-smoking philosopher to avoid prosecution under an anti-tobacco law.
"Smoking," the Left-wing existentialist wrote, is "the symbolic equivalent of destructively appropriating the entire world."
And yet in its poster for an exhibition to mark the hundredth anniversary of Sartre's birth the Bibliothéque Nationale de France decided, destructively or not, to edit out the philosopher's Gauloise.