Give Me Liberty, Give Me Cigarettes

As the year approaches its end I have recently taken the time to reflect back on the last twelve months of my life. Actually, the reflection began as I was browsing through my check register for 2005. Last New Year’s Eve I resolved to keep up with my checkbook—that is to meticulously document all my spending habits in a year’s time. After merely a few weeks of forcing myself to save receipts and further motivating myself by getting a convenient checkbook register template for MS Excel, I managed to condition myself into the habit of proper financial record keeping. Not only have I avoided overdraw fees by always knowing my account balance, but I can now look back and see how much money I have spent and on what I have spent it. This year I have spent $707.34 on cigarettes. That total is not as shocking as I expected. That’s approximately a carton every two weeks. In questioning whether or not it was necessary to spend that much on a habit that will kill me, well, I really don’t have a sensible answer to that, as I really do like smoking.

Yes, I enjoy smoking cigarettes. I have smoked for about five years but more regularly since college. I considered quitting after I graduate, however cigarettes have become such a part of my routine and my personality that I don’t know if I really want to quit. With all the recent public smoking bans being implemented in Kentucky cities I find myself becoming a very proud and narcissistic smoker. It seems un-American for a state to force its business owners into adopting a directive based on the comfort of would-be customers.

Personally I don’t feel it necessary to light up a cigarette in the courthouse, the classroom, or an elevator—in fact I think it would quite rude to do so. So as far as banning smoking outright in public places where people have no way of avoiding it, such as schools, museums, hospitals, or the work place, I see no problem at all. As a somewhat public-conscious smoker, I realize that most non-smokers don’t appreciate the smell of burning tobacco nor the unhealthy side effects. But in a restaurant or bar that supplies ashtrays, it can be assumed that the business caters to smokers; especially if said business lacks a non-smoking section. Some large franchises prohibit smoking in all their restaurants. I have heard a rumor that Waffle House will soon adopt a non-smoking policy nationwide. In the case of a non-smoking establishment, a smoker has no choice but to smoke outside or face the legal consequences. However, the smoker does have the choice to simply choose an establishment that permits smoking. This also holds true with non-smokers. If a person doesn’t like eating or lounging while exposed to cigarette smoke, it seems reasonable that those people should chose a non-smoking establishment. With a citywide smoking ban, the smoker does not have that choice, as all establishments within city limits are forced by law to prohibit public smoking. That sounds like an infringement of rights not only to the business owners but also to their smoking customers. It’s not as if smokers are incapable of waiting to go outside to smoke. It is merely the principle of the matter.

The problem stems from the smoking section itself. Unless the smoking section of an establishment involves a separate building or a NASA-style airlock, everyone within is going to be exposed to smoke. Integrating smoking and non-smoking sections into one building gives people a justified reason to complain. In this case, segregation is not a bad idea. Since I am a civil human being, I don’t enjoy smoking around someone who despises being exposed to it. When there is a sign posted outside an establishment that says “No Smoking,” the majority of smokers (myself included) take it upon themselves to observe the sign and not smoke inside or not bother going in at all.

In 2000, 23% of Americans over 18 were smokers—30% of those being Kentuckians, the highest percentage of any other state. It makes sense that anti-smokers would attack Kentucky in their movement to abolish smoking because if they could succeed here, they could succeed anywhere. What saddens me is that they have been very successful only in infringing upon the rights of the smokers. But why should they have the right to force all business owners into a mandatory non-smoking policy? Why not let the business owners chose for themselves how to run their businesses?

If business owners had the option to be 100% in favor of smoking or 100% in favor of non-smoking, and if the customers would stick to their respective establishments allocated specifically to their smoking preference, then everyone could be happy. No one likes being told what they can’t do. As long as there is a “where” in the equation, meaning some establishments that offer smoking, I think most smokers will be satisfied. More than likely in 50 years tobacco will be phased out of this country anyway, which I agree would be in the best interests of everyone. Sure, anyone has the ability to quit, but once a person knows what it is like to be addicted; there is no going back to the pre-addicted state of mind. Addiction is an opened door that can never be closed. Most smokers who have attempted to quit or have laid down their packs for good can tell you that “cutting back” is futile and that the only way to quit is to abstain completely.

But for now, there are 68 million smokers in the US who are not going to yield overnight—who will probably not yield until death. We smokers have a shortened, unhealthy life of coughing and sore lungs ahead of us, but it’s OUR choice as ludicrous as it may seem. We are going to keep smoking. If you are a smoker or a non-smoker and someone is smoking in an area where they shouldn’t, kindly remind them to go elsewhere. If someone is smoking in a designated area and you don’t like it, don’t want to be exposed to it, or don’t want your children exposed to it, then my advice is to go somewhere else. Smokers aren’t trying to force everyone else to smoke, so why try to force us not to?