Exercise Futility! It is all the rage...

Let's face it folks, we are not living in the seventies, when the guy making your meatloaf in the kitchen had a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. The non-smoking craze has permeated nearly every part of our society, and one is never at a loss for a smoke-free place to go. I get it, smoking is smelly and annoying. If you find the right dive bar, like the one that currently employs me, the smoke could get so thick that it burns the eyes (though not since the end of March when we were compelled to ban smoking from the original law passed by the council.)

I have heard all of the arguments for smoking bans and against them. Both sides have a point and both sides have the tendency toward bullshit broad brush strokes. So, I thought I would take a jab at some running misconceptions in this argument.

Ban Smoking, Spare Our Health!
1) So-called "scientific" studies on second-hand smoke are scientifically challenged. Over a year ago, there was a great article that highlighted many of the problems with these studies, the two most glaring...

a) results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and "astoundingly" some show a reduction of risk.

b)Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.

While I am not arguing that second hand smoke is not dangerous, I am arguing the voracity of the scientific evidence to back up the statement. Using faulty science to back up a broad claim is ridiculous, which brings me to my second issue with the "smoke-free for health" loonies.

2) Focusing on second hand smoke as a center point for lung and heart issues seems to take the spotlight off from something far more dangerous...the air quality in general. If lawmakers were really worried about what we are breathing, they would limit the amount of gasoline we could purchase per month, since I am willing to bet, because science has proven (without the use of faulty studies of varying data) that between the exhaust, tire particles, and leaky engines, we are far more likely to suffer lung and heart problems from living in an urban center with greater traffic quantities. (and yes, dozens of other air pollutants that are a direct result of many people living in a small area)

Again, I am not pushing for this type of legislation, but for those who embrace nanny legislation, this would be far better for your health, since you can hardly refrain from entering the outside for the rest of your life. Hell, I managed to go 987 miles in my car last year, less than the average person drives in a month, so don't tell me it isn't possible even in this "begging for public transportation" city. Walking on a sidewalk on a hot day in this city, you can visibly see and physically feel the fumes...I know because I do it every day and I loathe the approach of summer for that very reason.

To be fair, let us see what smoke the other side is blowing up my ass...

You Are Taking Away Our Rights! (wah wah)
1) The major argument coming from the other side of this issue is that business owners should be free to do what they want with their establishments. However, according to the health department, liquor control, the fire marshall, and a number of other codes enforcement bodies, that is hardly the case. Following guidelines regarding safety and health have always been a part of owning a public establishment. You haven't been allowed to smoke in a movie theater since I was a child. Why? Fire hazard. It is something we never question, but when these bans were initially enforced, there was similar outcries of "foul."

2) Another issue that is thrown about is the loss of profit. True, if it were really profitable to have a non-smoking bar, establishments would have adopted this years ago. As a bartender, I noticed a significant decrease in overall sales, and of course, tips when the first ban went into effect, since the bar I tend is part of a restaurant. We have been non-smoking since the end of March, and I have yet to see a reasonable return of the business we once enjoyed. Part of that is due to the fact that there are two bars within walking distance that can allow smoking because of the specifics exemptions of the first law. However, slowly, people are trickling back in to us, because we offer something the other two establishments don't...an environment conducive to a relaxing cocktail and intelligent conversation.

Just as it was an uphill battle for non-smokers to get a law on the ballot, the smokers are starting their battle by suing the city. While the lawsuit may have some merit because of the exemptions for casinos in the area, given the political prowess of casinos and the track record for these bans being found to be constitutionally sound, it is a last ditch futile effort that will fizzle in a smoker's wheeze, nearly as futile as those concerned with their health who pushed for this ban. Second-hand smoke is merely a bogeyman, an ominous apparition that is clouding real health concerns...and, it is an helluva political tool :)

While I think that much of the doomsday "all the local establishments will be history" is nonsense, I am sure we will see quite a few fall from the initial impact these laws have on sales. Even though studies show that the majority of business returns within three to six months after laws like this take effect, I don't know many small, locally owned drinking establishments that can endure a significant loss in cash-flow for half a year. In the establishment that employs me, we saw a 2/3 decrease in bar sales the first month, and now, we are nearly at half of what we were before the ban went into effect. However, we have the restaurant attached to us, that has been smoke-free for almost two years now, with a breakfast crowd which is just as strong as ever, so, given the diversity of our business, we will most assuredly make it past the rough patch.

"Issues" like this send me into a spin. We have created a crisis from one side who simply ingests what is fed to them, taking little time to delineate the hype from fact. The other ignores decades and decades of precedent set when it comes to regulating health and safety issues in the public arena. Who's right? Who cares? As with most things that get us arguing amongst each other, it is a fabricated issue that has managed to garner vehement support for and against, with rabid dogs spewing inaccurate dribble at each other. Better we argue this than something that actually matters.

So I would like to thank you non-smokers from saving me from burning eyes, one of the few scientifically proven harmful effects of smoke. Now, I get to smell bad breath and body odor as opposed to cigarette smoke and butts. I am so glad that it is my health that concerns you, and not that fact that smoking irritates you by clouding the room and making you stink of old cigarettes. And smokers, I would like to thank you, by proving that smokers are less likely to get up and vote for their right to make everyone else stink like an ashtray. No, you will wait until the damage has been done and then bitch about it, much like smoking until you get cancer and then suing the tobacco industry because you are sick. Too bad there aren't voting machines in tobacco shops and bars rather than churches, because that vote would have looked a lot different in April.

As with most of my evenings, I will enjoy my whiskey/cigarette combo in the comfort of my home.