babbling blue

City Council snuffs out cigarettes

Yesterday, the Chicago City Council finally passed a ban on smoking in indoor public spaces. This is good news, but the big kicker is that the places where the ban is needed most don’t need to comply with it for 2.5 years. Taverns and restaurant bars are exempt from the new law until July 1, 2008! There is no real reason for such a long phase-in. It’s not like ADA-compliance, which could entail significant remodeling to allow wheelchair accessibility. This is just a matter of beginning enforcement. The only “reason” for the delay (an anagram for “Daley”, strangely enough) was that it was necessary to get those aldermen who didn’t want the ban to apply to bars to vote for the law. My guess is that they’re hoping they’ll be able to somehow overturn or weaken the law before it really takes effect. Or they’re waiting for a mircale. Miracle technology that is.

They also painstakingly settled on final language that will allow smoking to continue after July 1, 2008, if “air filtration or purification devices” are developed and installed that remove carcinogens from the air. Those technologies must “render the exposure to secondhand smoke” in the bar or tavern “equivalent to exposure to secondhand smoke in the ambient outdoor air surrounding the establishment.”

This worries me a bit. While I can’t imagine any technology that could possibly accomplish such a thing–if you’re standing next to someone with a lit cigarette, you’re going to be breathing smoke regardless of how good the ventilation or air filtration systems are–I can foresee scenarios (especially in Chicago) where compliance would be rigged. There’s too much left open to interpretation.

There are, of course, those who bemoan the existence of such a law. They say this is “government interference”. That government shouldn’t be telling people how to run their private businesses. That it’s infringing on people’s rights.

Pshaw! The books are full of laws regulating private business. Lack of proper regulation and/or enforcement of business leads to things like Enron, with thousands of innocent people losing their retirement plans. Money many of them worked a lifetime to earn. And how long would it have taken the country to rid itself of racially segregated private businesses if strong anti-discrimination laws hadn’t been passed?

And someone’s right to engage in a legal behavior ends when it begins to have a negative physical effect on someone else. There’s an old saying “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” You can’t even compare cigarettes to alcohol. The simple act of ingesting alcohol doesn’t physically effect anyone but the drinker. The same is not true of smoking. In terms of infringing on people’s rights, this law makes more sense than a seatbelt law. But look at how many places you can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

Well this was longer than I intended, so I’ll shut up. While it’s not the giant stride I would have liked to see, Chicago has at least made a step in the right direction. I’ll be watching what happens over the next few years with great interest.