Kill the Smokers And that leaves you with whom?

A reader writes: "With due respect for your pissed-offedness about all this, it's not right for ANYONE to be assaulted. I suspect your crazy waitress had been verbally assaulted by smokers, and that was the source of her reaction to you."

Perfectly correct. And so the brunt of carrying out oppressive laws is left to those least equipped to enforce them, and those they are most supposedly trying to protect.

In regards to our negative interaction the other day, (which I regret, because while I am finding it very difficult to remain civil about this law, it is my duty to do so) I think it's important that you and everyone else understands that my protest about this is not about defending smoking. It's a terrible habit, but one I happen to enjoy - but that's still not the issue.

The issue at hand is one of defining what is personal, private, social and public space, and then determining what is acceptable behaviour in any of those millieus. Let me break down my view of this law precisely:

1) A bar is social space. We can all agree on that. What then needs to be determined is whether or not the owner of a bar has the right to determine the rules of engagement in his or her establishment without governmental interference. I believe that bars can make those determinants all by themselves, using the market, patrons, and audience as a guidelines, without forcing every bar to do as one bar wants to do (the Cowgirl) without losing marketshare.

This law is not, and has not ever been about, "the health of workers." There are *plenty* of other jobs in this city of a $9.50 hourly wage to satisfy the demands of those who must work in smoke-free environments. Furthermore, if the City Council were actually serious about *public health*, we'd all be talking about the effects of "second-hand alcohol" which is far more dangerous and much more actively violent than cigarette smoke, as any bereaved relative of a totally sober driver can tell you following their death in a drunk driving accident.

Already, prior to this law, bars like the Second Street Brewery and the Santa Fe Brewery had made the decision to not allow indoor smoking, and by all accounts, these were among the two most popular live music venues in the city. So the argument that people *needed* this law to be able to go see live music is also a pile of pernicious nonsense.

2) A patio is outdoor space. While a lot of cities like San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles are cited in making the case for this law, I will note that none of those cities disallow smoking in outdoor patios, with some exceptions for places where food are served. Thus, Bushee and Co. want to take the law one step further because we're so darn progressive around here - and I think it's just Dead Wrong. Again, businesses should make those determinations about the rules of engagement in a social space, in my humble opinion. People are FREE to choose whether or not to go to those establishments.

3) "25 feet from any open doorway" means downtown, which means *PUBLIC SPACE.* No smoking within 25 feet of any open doorway is simply an anti-vagrancy law, another means to a) keep the streets clean of undesirables (which in this case means, "the woman who walks the floor of a gallery and wants a cigarette on her break"), and b) to give the police another excuse that they don't need to hassle people. How will this law be enforced? How *selectively* will this law be enforced? Who will receive citations and who will not? A year from now, someone will do that statistical analysis and they'll *probably* find that white males like me are *least* affected by this law - unless they're young or obviously poor.

This law attempts to control business, eliminate choices for social space, and attempts to legistlate behaviour in both social and public space. To a degree, that attempt to change the rules of engagement in social and public space really defines the heart of why this law is terrible. You might feel "protected" - but the problem with this line of argument is that it can SO easily be turned around to eliminate CHOICE for other people in other types of situations.

As I have said before, I actively support a woman's right to choose, and so I watch with utter horror as the same side of the fence that might support that right is also keenly interested in eliminating choices for others: including, in this case, bar owners, bar workers, bar patrons and the smoking and non-smoking public at large. Another supporter labelled Patti Bushee a fascist over this yesterday and I don't think he's far off the mark. The warp and woof of culture is that some people choose activities and behaviours that others in the culture might abhor. You might say that you are offended by second-hand smoke - I could just as easily say that I am offended by a woman's decision to *kill her baby* (emphasis added, but my words are no less emphatic than some of the crap that gets thrown at me for smoking **outside**) and we have choices - we can agree to disagree, or we can do our level best to DICTATE THE PERSONAL AND MORAL CHOICES OF OTHERS IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE.

If that's what you and other supporters of this law intend to do, then I say you're cutting your own throats. I say that all bets are off. I say that if you attempt to eliminate me from the public sphere, you will lose a potential ally. And while I don't mean this literally, I will say in making me and my kind utterly personna non grata, even OUTDOORS, then you are affectively eliminating me from the public discourse. And while I'm sure that Patti Bushee and the rest of those cowards think of me as nothing but poor and undesirable because I still *smoke* (heaven forbid, unenlightened Neanderthal!) the fact of the matter is: "If you eliminate us from the public discourse, then the only people you get are the people who aren't as fond of freedom as I am."

4) What's next? There's a small hipster city just like ours (without the zillion-dollar retail district) called Arcata, California that has actually outlawed smoking *on the Plaza.* That's right. No smoking in what was once the city's primary public space. Before the law, kids and hippies and general malcontents coated the Plaza with their skateboards and hacky sacks. Now - it's just *empty.*

What begins as a health issue can so easily become a crusade. But a crusade for what, exactly? Legislated morality and behaviour? A collapsed social core that no one spends any time in? Laws that eliminate certain people from the conversation, and makes criminals out of them?

If those cats on City Council think they're *any* less reactionary than Bush and Co., they need to think again. This law sets a dangerous precedence and it should be repealed. Any free-thinking person would have to agree.

ps: The waitress *did* feel harassed about the law - and she's a smoker TOO.