The smoking ban for St. Louis county failed this week when a council member changed her mind apparently because she thought the ban wasn’t strict enough (I had a hard time digesting her remarks as reported in the paper). I am somewhat unhappy about the defeat. I guess I’ll just have to start visiting fine scarfing establishments in Ballwin, which does have a public smoking ban.

Tags: smoking

Kurt Odenwald, who happens to be my rep on the St. Louis County Council, is pushing an ordinance to ban smoking in a lot of public places. Needless to say, not everybody’s happy about it. I have somewhat mixed emotions about the ban, as I’m a limited government guy but a non-smoker who really can’t stand tobacco smoke. So I keep asking myself would I be violating my principles by supporting such a ban. 

My one bit of original reporting is that almost a year ago, while forced to sit in a smoking section to get a table in a restaurant, the owner apologized and said he wished the county would ban smoking in restaurants so that it would take the hassle out of it for him (he didn’t seem too worried about people traveling outside the county to eat and smoke). So not all business owners are opposed.

On the one hand, I don’t like the government telling the business owners what to do, although after all the hoops they already have to jump through, one more can’t be that bad. Nor do I like government telling people when and where they can do things. On the other, smoke pretty much ruins my enjoyment of whatever I’m doing, whether that’s eating, listening to a band outdoors, or watching fireworks. And as I’m confronted with less and less smoke as the years go by, the more sensitive I become to it, so much so that someone smoking several blankets away from me on a no breeze July evening waiting for the fireworks to starts is quite noticeable and causes me to breath shallowly. And smoke lingers – in clothes, in furnishings, in breath. I don’t think I’m alone in this, so there is a clash between smokers and non-smokers with businesses and public events caught in the middle.

I know the ordinance is pitched at the claim that the workers need protection from all that second hand smoke, but if so why are there any exceptions? Am I morally lacking that I discount that claim and focus in on the public – smokers and non-smokers? Can I in good conscience ask the government to restrict people from doing what they enjoy to increase my enjoyment? If, as my libertarian friends assure me, the right to swing my fist around ends at the start of someone’s nose, does someone’s right to spread their smoke around end at the start of my nose as well?

I suppose in a more perfect world, we could all just get along and figure out how smokers and non-smokers could share the air without resorting to laws. Part of the problem is that while a non-smoking section next to a smoking section my be smoker free, it’s not smoke free. I understand that government can’t smooth out every bump, can’t make my life nuisance (or worse) free, but I’m tired of tobacco smoke. Maybe I should put up with the occasional dose of tobacco smoke so that others can enjoy their smoke, but I’m tired of not being able to breath freely and enjoy a meal because somebody else has an addiction. So if you want to light up, go right ahead – on your own property. You can even leave the curtains open.

Tags: smoking