The ability of grown adults to make rational decisions for themselves came under fire again at last night’s City Council meeting. Apparently, this fair city’s control over its residents’ social behavior was lagging behind more “progressive” governments, so our surrogate parents in city government have decided to play catch-up.
First item on the agenda: the great social ill that is barroom smoking.
Our ‘rents in government have supported their argument for a bar-ban by focusing on the health of bartenders and waitstaff in smoke-filled bars. This is a strategic tactic since bar patrons enter the bar by choice, and any of them who don’t like secondhand smoke can choose to go elsewhere. Additionally, no studies have conclusively shown a link between short-term smoke exposure and long-term health effects.
But more importantly, by focusing on the employees’ plight rather than the customers’, the ‘rents can compare their interventionism to the arguably admirable creation of OSHA and other workplace-safety accomplishments of the past.
To compare the dangers of secondhand smoke to the dangers faced by steel workers and coal miners during the early days of the industrial revolution is simply ridiculous, and it cheapens the real gains our grandfathers achieved in the workplace.
Many bar employees smoke themselves, making it hard to argue their workplace hazards significantly contribute to their wheezing and coughing. Additionally, the movement to ban bar smoking is not originating from bar staff or from regular bar patrons. The movement is driven by a group of health zealots and academic types who, as always, know what is best for everyone else.
The argument just doesn’t hold up. Smoke is as part of the Madison bar scene as speeding is a part of NASCAR racing. Would racecar drivers all be safer on the job if they enforced 45-mph speed limits at Indy? Of course, but it wouldn’t be much of a race. Similarly, bar staff may be marginally healthier without secondhand smoke, but smoking and drinking go hand in hand, and secondhand smoke goes with the territory.
But enough with the common sense. If our ‘rents hate smoking so much, why don’t they just make it illegal already? Perhaps because the ‘rents lack the political power of the great tyrannical governments of the past; perhaps they are simply shrewder?
Many Americans fear an Orwellian “Big Brother” with a panoptic eye who sees all and controls all. I am much more afraid of a benevolent “mother alder” who introduces benevolent social control in little chunks, all the while arguing these new regulations and normative shackles are for the “societal good.” I fear this scenario so much because I look around me and see my peers eating this stuff up.
I am not going to argue that the brave new world is here; that is an entirely different column. I am going to argue that we are heading down a slippery slope, and the advocates of the current bar-smoking ban have intentions we all need to wise up to. If you won’t stand up now, when were you planning to do so?
If the thought of benevolent social controllers leading us like rats off of the terrace into Lake Mendota doesn’t bother you, then look at the ridiculous implementation problems this ordinance creates.
First, the ordinance creates an uneven playing field for bars in Madison. In no way do I advocate the California smoking model, but at least it universally bans indoor smoking in a consistent manner. By defining “taverns” arbitrarily as establishments that receive 50 percent or more of their revenue from alcohol sales, you can bet that any bar that receives between 40 percent and 50 percent of its revenue from alcohol is going to do everything in its power to increase its booze sales to get to the magic 50 percent.
The result of increased alcohol sales surely flies in the face of the University Health Service’s and ALRC’s goals of decreasing alcohol consumption and increasing alternatives to binge-drinking; in this case, eating. But if the ultimate goal of the ‘rents is simply to legislate our behavior, their consistency becomes clear.
Second, where is the enforcement mechanism? Are we going to expect an already overburdened downtown police force do bar counts, ID checks and write tickets for illegal smokers?
Why would we expect bar owners and management who are against the ban to enforce rules they never wanted? At the end of the day there will be fewer ashtrays, and in their place we will have filthy tabletops and floors.
Enough is enough on cigarettes. They are a legal product, and our government has become obsessed with them — their taxation, their litigation and their regulation. It is time to let adults make some life choices.
Before I go, I will explain why I gave smelly smokers a pass while deriding smelly hippies in past columns. The answer is simple: The left doesn’t have a monopoly on hypocrisy.
A.J. Hughes ([email protected]) is a software developer and UW graduate.
