SMOKE, SMOKE, SMOKE THAT CIGARETTE: The Last Hurrah

Well, there's just a few more days left of smoking in bars in Austin for the next 2 years. One little bright tidbit I found out (courtesy Steph) was that Philadelphia voted down a citywide smoking ban a while back. You know, Philadelphia -- birthplace of freedom, genesis of our constitution -- actually had the good sense to adhere to those basic principles they thought up a couple hundred years ago. Funny how the smoker-haters forgot to mention that one on their blogs and websites. Guess New York and L.A. are more like Austin.

Here's a quote from Paul Minor, a local promoter and musician, had to say (courtesy ww.news8austin.com) about it -- and this is the most common sense I've heard since the thing started:

"I'm looking forward to being in a bar and enjoying a show without a lot of second hand smoke," local musician/promoter Paul Minor said.

Don't let him fool you, though. Minor voted against the smoking ban.

"It's the 'Live Music Capital of the World' doing things to undermine the live music business. So, I felt like this was a thing a business owner should be able to decide for themselves," he said.

That's a prime example of the most fair way of thinking on this issue. On the other hand, Sara Hickman, a local musician who spoke out in favor of the ban, had this to say:

" I played one night and I literally lost my voice in the middle of show because the smoke in there is so thick... To not be able to go to a place where you work and feel healthy and to possibly get sick is upsetting," she said.

But, Hickman faced a lot of criticism for her open support of the smoking ban.

"I didn't realize how ingrained smoking is for a lot of people. And, how hostile people were gonna get. That was a little scary."

That quote's a prime example of the most common thought process for the anti-smoker -- selfishness. True, even smokers complain about a bar being too smoky, and I've had trouble being full-voice maybe once or twice when it's really thick. But punish or blame the bar for having piss-poor ventilation, not the smokers who are in every other bar. Basically, she paraphrased what I've said all along is their way of thinking: "I think it's icky. Let's ban it." These are people that vote based on what's best for them, rather than what's best for everybody else, placing more value on their own personal feelings or desires than that of other people's. The prime definition of selfishness.

Now that I think of it, that's the difference between socialism and true democracy -- in a socialist country, the government decides what's best for everyone, and makes laws accordingly. In the U.S., the idea is for the people to decide what's best for everybody, and vote accordingly. But unfortunately, in today's America, specifically in Austin, it seems to have shifted to a theory of voting for "what's best for me and my family", rather than what's best for the country (or city, in this case). I'm not sure when that shift happened -- probably in the '60's, when Americans began to truly lose hope and trust in the government -- but it's in full force in this town. But now it's even worse. With the knowledge of the selfish way people decide their votes today, we've not only lost trust in the goverment, we can't trust the people either. Half a million people can't smoke in bars like they have for the last 100 years because a few thousands zealots say that can't?

Strip away all the convoluted, arguable "facts" -- crowds will increase/decrease, bars will/won't close, it will/won't hurt tourism, it is/isn't taking away basic freedoms, it will/won't change the soul of Austin, secondhand smoke is murder/stop whining you big girl -- and what you get is this: it's taking the freedoms away from one group, and giving them to another, simply because they have a louder voice. The fact that it's so debatable, plus the fact that it's such a minor issue in the grand scheme of our city's problems (we had SmokeFree Austin....where's ChildAbuseFree Austin? BumFree Austin?), not to mention that we already have new laws and restrictions in place, makes it silly and pointless enact a citywide ban. The decision to have smoking or not should be left up to individual businesses, and what their specific patrons want, not a citywide ordinance. It was just a way for zealots to stroke their egos, and thanks to the selfish and sheep-like voters in this town, they've succeeded.

I expect to see a 2 to 6 month spike in bar attendence -- the smokers will keep going out of habit for a while, and the anti-smokers will be fired up about proving their point -- followed by a dramatic drop-off for the following year and a half. I hope they all prove me wrong.

----------------------------------

I wrote a song about the smoking ban nonsense, and it will be on my next record as soon as we get that damn thing out. It's a mid-tempo hillbilly two-beat in D, if you're keeping score.

SMOKE 'EM IF YOU GOT 'EM

A honky-tonk in Texas, a churning hardwood floor
The crowd is spinning 'round around a Texas troubadour
The neon lights are bright behind that low and smoky haze
But some say we're wrong, and now we've gotta change our wicked ways

CHORUS
Smoke 'em if you got 'em, boy, you sure won't have a chance
To offer her a smoke after you ask that girl to dance
You just can't hear the music right from right outside the door
So smoke 'em if you got 'em, 'cause you can't here any more

I remember when this town had soul and grit, without a doubt
So how the hell'd we get here, welcome folks to Branson South
Or maybe we're just L.A. East, or New York City West
We're just hillbillies after all, I'm sure them folks know best

REPEAT CHORUS

----------------------------------

I'm sure (and hope) that last Soapbox irritated at least a few of you. I'm sure I'll get a response or two -- but because of my love and caring for you, my beloved non-smoking reader, I'll save you the trouble. I've taken the time to pre-write your response for you, because I know you are busy going to PTA meetings and soccer games and whatnot, and I have a feeling I know what it'll say. Here you go, just fill in the blanks where needed:

Hello Roger --

I just read your latest rant on the smoking ban. I've read some of your past blogs, and although I usually enjoy them, I think on this one you're dead wrong.

I've lived in Austin for ___ years, after moving here from ____. I've been to New York before, and I can tell you for a fact that there are still lots of bars and restaurants open there. I've been going to bars in Austin for ____years, and I have to say, I really like going to ____ much better without all the cigarette smoke. I hate that smell, it makes my clothes stink. And it's just not fair that I can't go out and enjoy live music without having to cough up half a lung the next morning.

I think you made a lot of unfair assumptions and accusations, and calling Austin non-smokers "zealots" is very offensive to me. Also, I am certainly not a "sheep" as you put it. I listen to what ____ says, and I watch the local news, I listen to ____ on the radio, I look at the facts on the internet, and I vote for what I think is best for me and my family. I don't consider myself, or the many non-smokers I know, to be "selfish". Why is it selfish to want to go out and not half to inhale your killer cigarette smoke? If I have to go outside to get fresh air, why shouldn't you have to go outside to smoke? That sounds fair to me.

I can tell you right now that I'll be going out a lot more now that there's no smoking. I'm a real Austinite, and I love live music. Austin is a beautiful and creative place to be, and I'm glad that I can go out to ____ without having to deal with the smoke.

Sincerely --

______

There you go, anti-smokers. You're welcome. The rest of you -- I've gotten this response, or some variation thereof, at least 10 times. Complete with at least 20 references to "I" or "me".

Roger