smoked out

Just recently, a smoking ban passed back in 2005 finally want into effect. Apparently, before the ban, there was no legislation in Montana that prohibited smoking in schools, hospitals, or retirement homes. There was also no law against smoking in bars.

I've heard authoritative noises praising this ban for its benefits to public health and safety, saying how proud they are that Montana is “ahead of the pack”, being only the tenth state in the nation to prohibit smoking in public places statewide. I've heard health nuts ranting happily about how “it's about time,” before they launch into a stream of figures regarding secondhand smoke and its affects on the heart and lungs.

What I'm not hearing is why, exactly, this issue warranted statewide legal action. Previously, if an establishment wished to prohibit smoking, they would post a sign. If anyone violated the sign, they were quietly asked to leave. If they ignored this request, they would be made to leave. A simple system, but effective. In light of this, what is the purpose of a statewide ban if not to remove smokers from the few places they are still accepted?

According to KCFW, only sixteen percent of adults in Montana smoke. This percentage has not changed in over five years. Smokers do not fight for equal treatment; they are segregated by choice. They do not push ideals of any kind; they are united only by their vice. They are, as a group, practitioners of what has been called Montanan Conservatism, holding to this state's traditional adage: “Leave me alone.”

The non-smokers of Montana, however, seem to have some sort of axe to grind. Apparently 88% of Montanans feel that the threat to their health is so great that smoking cannot be tolerated inside any building, be it bar, club, or cabaret. I'm not sure why these establishments are so important to the non-smokers, just as I'm not sure how many non-smokers frequent businesses such as these.

In a neutral environment, demanding someone else change to better suit your comfort is unforgivably selfish. It is putting your importance, your rights, over those of another; this is the behavior of parasites, rather than the cohabitation of civilized men.

Each one of us, as an individual, is granted the freedom to do whatever we choose, and each of us is obligated responsibility for the choices we make. If you want a healthy heart and lungs, avoid places where there's going to be secondhand smoke. A simple system, but effective.

At what point did our comfort begin to hold precedence over the rights of others? When did we begin to require laws and motions to regulate how we interact with one another?

Now that the law has been passed, there is little more that can be done, especially by people grown so accustomed to apathy and inaction. Some businesses will tank, or plead for exception. Others will not notice any difference. Smokers will shiver violently in the cold, or stay home, because despite the intentions of our well-intending lawmakers, the addiction is stronger than any discomfort. People will not quit just because it is suddenly inconvenient or uncomfortable.

So what, if anything, has been accomplished here? What few bars had still allowed smoking will now offer clean air for their remaining patrons. Hopefully the influx of non-smokers will be enough to fill the empty, smoke-stained stools.


NOTE: At the time of this writing, it has been five and a half weeks since the author's last cigarette. He does not, nor will ever, consider himself a parasitic non-smoker.