Outdoor Smoking Now a Crime

On Friday, a near-absolute outdoor smoking ban went into effect in the city of Calabasas, California. I was going to let it affect my blood pressure during a bout of fuming, feverish blogging, but Jacob Sullum over at Reason has already done it for me. His conclusion:

All this may seem a little extreme when you consider there's no evidence that outdoor smoking jeopardizes the health of bystanders. But that is not really what the ban's supporters have in mind when they talk about protecting "public health."

Their aim is not just to eliminate secondhand smoke but to eliminate smoking. That's why the ordinance cites the health effects of smoking on smokers as a justification for the ban. And that's why the ban's official goals include "reducing the potential for children to associate smoking and tobacco with a healthy lifestyle" and "affirming and promoting the family-friendly atmosphere of the City's public places."

The ban's backers see smoking as a shameful vice that must be kept out of sight, an indecent activity from which adults must shield children's eyes as well as their noses. The logic of forcing people to set a good example for the kids — which also would justify banning fat people and motorcyclists from public places — reduces adults to the level of children whenever they venture out of their homes.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, smokers are enjoying a creative way around the local indoor smoking ban. From today's Washington Post:

Glasses clink, friends chat in plush chairs and a fire crackles in a stone hearth at Marshall McGearty Tobacco Artisans, a "tobacco lounge" that has opened in Chicago's trendy Wicker Park neighborhood. It appears every bit the bar or coffeehouse. But appearances can be deceiving: Marshall McGearty is technically a tobacco retail shop with at least 65 percent of its sales in tobacco. And that means it is exempt from Chicago's new ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places.

Many patrons on a recent evening were enjoying the lush atmosphere and freedom, they said, from dirty looks from nonsmokers. But critics say the parent company of the lounge, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is taking advantage of a loophole in the city's anti-smoking ordinance.

And that would be bad because...?

Comments

[GreginOz]

Looks like this IS Kansas, Toto. Dear Roj, I am having a freakin' heart attack! I looked on the Liberty Squeeze in the States with a certain smugness, heck, I live in Australia! Unfortunately I work in a suburb of Sydney called Fairfield (ironic as it is an industrial area mixed with residential). See
http://smh.com.au/news/national/smoking-in-the-park-stubbed-out/2006/03/21/1142703365712.html
Regards.

[Rick]

Oh, sheesh. You can smoke a cigarette in your own home, at least, and it's illegal to smoke a far-less dangerous joint. Prohibition has been absurd for a long, long, long time. The smoking laws are more justified than the pot laws, so why are people complaining now?