SMOKE, SMOKE, SMOKE THAT CIGARETTE.....

"This for all you non-smokers out there, you and you only, because I know for a fact that you don't know this. Ready? Non-smokers die every day." -- Bill Hicks, Relentless

It's icky... let's ban it!

That's the idea that has given us most of our sin laws in the U.S. -- marijuana, no buying liquor on Sundays, certain sex acts in some states, gay marriages, no Dixie Chicks records.... And now it's made its way into our bars. That's right, I'm talking about the smoking ban.

For those of you that don't get out much or watch TV or read the newspapers or talk to people, there has been a rash in the last few years, in the U.S and around the world, of cities banning smoking in public places. OK, fine, it makes sense -- no smoking on airplanes, offices, public buildings during the day, restaurants, etc. Those are places where people have to be and work, in relatively confined spaces, both smokers and non-smokers. And of course I'm especially for a ban on smoking on a place where there's kids around. It hurts no one for smokers to have to go outside and smoke during the day (although I have known some smokers who have gotten sick from having to stand outside in the rain or freezing cold to smoke. Ya gotta love the irony there).

NOW, several places, including New York City, Dallas, all of California, and the entire country of Ireland, have banned smoking EVERYWHERE, including in all bars and nightclubs. Now Austin is next on the list, and our City Council is trying to pass it into law with no public election and virtually no public awareness of what's going on. There was a meeting for people to express ideas, etc., last week -- I didn't hear about it on the news, the Chronicle, or in the Austin American-Statesman until the day it was happening. This is typical of our City Council -- this is the same Council that issued public statements, supposedly representing all Austinites, against the war in Iraq as well as (get this) the Michael Jackson expose show on Fox TV. It's true, I couldn't make up something that ridiculous.

Here's a couple of reasons, from my perspective, maybe that you haven't heard or thought of before, that the newest Austin smoking ban prohibiting smoking in all bars and nightclubs is a BAD IDEA:

1) When people have to go outside of a bar to smoke, that means they're not listening to me play. In a very direct way, a smoking ban in bars hurts my business. Besides CD's, live music is the only product that I produce, and my main source of revenue. By banning smoking in bars, it requires consumers to not be presented with my product. I faced this firsthand when playing in California -- one minute the club is packed, the next minute it's only a quarter full while everybody goes out to smoke, and in the end most folks only see about half my set. Imagine a businessman giving a presentation at a board meeting, and 8 out of 10 board members have to get up and leave several times during the presentation. How can he sell them his product or idea if no one is there to listen, or they only see bits and pieces? He can't. When we make our set list, our list of songs to play in a given time frame, each song relates to the one before or after, to help with flow and to highlight the songs you want people to hear and enjoy most. When people are constantly in & out, they don't get the right impression of the product I am presenting, and therefore don't consume my product (the music itself, as well as CDŐs, t-shirts, a ticket to my show the next time I'm in town, etc.).

2) Ever been in a bar in the daytime, before it opens? Believe me, you'd rather smell the cigarettes. It smells like a mixture of stale sweat, warm beer, and ammonia. That's what bars that don't allow smoking smell like all the time.

3) If cigarettes smelled like flowers, there would be no smoking bans. "It's icky. Let's ban it!" Most people say that health risks are the main reason for banning smoking in bars. But this is arguable -- if you are anti-smoking you believe it is very harmful. If you are pro-smoking, you believe the effects are negligible. Basically, we shouldn't believe data that says secondhand smoke is "bad, bad, bad" when it's put together by the "Smoke-Free America" people, any more than we should believe the Philip-Morris cigarette company bigwigs when they present us data that says it's not very harmful. Yes, if you totally saturate a lab rat s lungs non-stop for days on end with cigarette smoke, it will die. So, given that the effects of secondhand smoke are arguable at least, why hurt people's income because of it? Why alienate and belittle a huge sector of people for an arguable cause? Is there another reason? Yes, there is. It's because some non-smokers think cigarette smoke is icky. "My clothes and hair smell like smoke when I come home, and I cough more, and sometimes my eyes sting. I hate cigarettes!" Which is all fine, totally understandable. But why does that move people to say, "Let's outlaw it so NOBODY can smoke anywhere around me, ever again!" It's not just about the health risk, folks, don't let them fool you. It's the fact that they think it's icky, they don't like it, they just don't like to be around it, and feel that everyone, even those in a majority (smokers in bars), should cater to their wants. Ask a non-smoker sometime if he/she would be in favor of banning smoking in bars if cigarettes smelled like a fresh spring meadow. I have. Watching the contradiction and indecision work over their face is really entertaining.

4) HereŐs an odd analogy/question: Should cyclists be banned on public roadways? "Of course not!" you say defiantly. And rightfully so. They are healthy people, doing a good thing, right? True. BUT they are a public health risk -- putting motorists' lives in danger by riding slowly down busy thoroughfares, disregarding stop signs and red lights, causing accidents, and holding up traffic - which causes more traffic accidents. I experienced this firsthand last week, when I was driving to a gig in Luckenbach. A quarter-mile, single file line of about 20 bicyclists going down a 2-lane State highway in the country just about killed me and several over motorists -- it was drizzling rain, there was no shoulder on the road, the speed limit was 70mph, and the cyclists were going 5mph up the hills to 35 mph (at best) down the hills. Every car (including mine) had to practically slam on its brakes every time you reached a cyclist (about 30-50 yds apart), almost causing wreck after wreck because it was rainy, the road was curvy and there was nowhere to pass. In the cyclists' mind, it's just like the non-smoker: "Bicycles are better than cars, you big smelly polluters, so you should be bicycling, too, anyway! We have just as much right to this road as you do!" Sure, if you can obey the traffic laws that cars do, like going a minimum speed, not running red lights and stop signs, and staying in lanes. But what bicyclists don't understand (or choose to ignore) is that roads, and the laws that govern them, were made for functional, traveling automobiles, and bicyclists are using them for convenience and exercise, rarely for travel. If cars were taking over designated bike paths, then cars should obey bike path rules, like a maximum speed limit and other courtesies that cyclists have designated for their paths. Truthfully, it's just a mentality of: "What I'm doing is more right than what you are doing, so you should cater to me." However, they are a definite threat to the health and lives of the hundreds of people they come in contact with every day -- but this is of little concern to them, as it does not suit their personal wants, and what they are doing is better than what others are doing anyway. But are we going to the City Council and the Mayor, trying to ban cyclists on public roadways? Of course not. Nor should we.

5) The smog and pollution caused by emissions from SUV's and other large vehicles, not to mention Austin traffic in general, is FAR worse for any given person's health than secondhand cigarette smoke. We all breathe in all that exhaust all day, every day, and most of us only go out to bars once or twice a week. I bet right now there's a guy that's loaded his $1000 bicycle on top of his SUV, parked it at the top of cap of TX Hwy or down one end of Guadalupe St. (both BUSY thoroughfares), and is going to ride his bike around all day, in and out of traffic, ending up back at his SUV. Then he will zoom away, speeding and tailgating and weaving in and out of traffic -- probably on his way to a "Smoke-Free Austin" meeting. The guy just risked the lives of or physically harmed about 10 times more people in those few hours than if those same people spent a few hours (or days for that matter) in a smoky bar. Do the math -- if you accept that both smog and secondhand smoke are harmful to your health, the guy on the bike & SUV risks or harms anywhere from 500 people (cars passed/endangered while driving or cycling) to 1 million people (entire Austin population breathing the smog from his SUV), while the smoker harms anywhere from 15 - 200 people. And that's about 2 or 3 times a week. We have to swerve around this guy on his bike, or breathe the fumes from his SUV, all day, every day. Of course, we all know that cyclists and SUV's wonŐt be , and should not be, banned. So why are we trying to ban something that causes risk to even less people? And don't forget, people go into a bar by choice -- the SUV guy and his bike harm us by force. We have no choice but to be put at risk by him.

Our government, Democrats and Republicans, from the WASP-iest conservative to the tree-huggin'-est liberal, are now in the business of "parenting" us, deciding what is best for us as individuals, rather than as a society or community. Did you realize that Paul Koretz of the California State Assembly has sponsored a bill in CA that will limit smoking in your own home?? I'm not making this up, folks. The idea is that cigarette smoke may waft from an open window into a non-smoking neighbor's window, therefore causing them harm. Dear God, we're making laws based on potential wafting now?

"What's next, you can only smoke in your bedroom, under the covers, with all the lights turned out? 'It's the police, Mr. Leary! We know you're in there with the cigarettes. Come out with your hands up!' You'll never get me alive, coppa!!! Yah, see, yah...!" Denis Leary, No Cure For Cancer

Now I'll once again polarize myself politically: If a person wants to destroy themselves from the inside out, without hurting others, they should have every right to. If a guy wants to play Hunter S. Thompson and take every drug they can get their hands on and act like a crazy man on their own time, more power to them as long as it hurts no one else. And given that cigarette smokers are in the vast majority at most bars, the people that smokers harm the most when they smoke in a bar is other smokers!

OK, I see the arguments for smoking bans, and there are some good ones. Here are some of their undisputable facts, and my take on them:

Fact #1 -- Smoking cigarettes is bad for your health.

Yes, they are bad for you. They will chemically addict you, and they will probably kill you if you smoke enough of them. I refer you to my politically polarizing paragraph above: The key word there is you -- it's a personal choice. If a reasonably sane, able-minded person wants to kill or harm themselves from the inside, especially using legal, sold-at-the-Quickie-Mart methods, they should be able to do that without condemnation.. Government's job is to keep us from harming each other, not ourselves.

Fact #2 -- Second- hand smoke is detrimental to the health of others.

I'm not saying second hand smoke isn't bad for you. ItŐs certainly not good for you at all. It just doesn't necessarily cause cancer or emphysema or anything like that, although it may exacerbate an already existing condition. I realize that the studies that were done, such as on airline flight attendants in the '80's, showing that they got serious health problems from being on planes all day with people smoking But that's just it -- they were cooped up in a little pressurized torture chamber with wings for hours and days on end, not in a nightclub for a couple of hours, a couple of nights a week. The anti-smoking lobby has plenty of new data all the time to support their claims, and, contrarily, the pro-smoking rights lobby has just as much data to support their side of the issue. They just don't get their data out there, because no network is going to run pro-smoking PSA. As usual, there's no way to whole-heartedly believe the facts given by either side, because they give only the facts that support their respective agendas.

Fact #3 -- Non-smokers should not have to be harmed by the bad choices of others.

That is absolutely true. What is also true is that non-smokers donŐt have to be harmed by smokers in bars. They are free to choose what bars they go to and donŐt go to. If they donŐt want to be around smoke, they donŐt have to go to that smoky bar. At least in Austin, there are plenty of outdoor, no-smoke, or low-smoke alternatives, any night of the week, all over town. There is no reason for it to be completely outlawed. If they want their favorite bar to be non-smoking, they should tell the owner, and try and get other customers to do the same. Why do people feel like whenever there is a wrong, the only way to right it is by passing a law? Just tell the manager. And if you, the non-smoker, are in the minority, and the manager chooses to keep allowing smoking, just accept the fact that you are a less-than-50% patronage of the establishment, and either deal with the smoke or find another place to go.

Fact #4 -- Everyone should quit smoking because it will probably kill you.

Yes, maybe if everyone everywhere quit smoking, we would all be a lot healthier as a species. What anti-smokers don't understand is that most smokers simply don't care how healthy they are. It's just not important to them, which is a concept that non-smokers can't (or won't) comprehend. There's a million other ways to die, which don't have anything to do with smoking cigarettes, and could happen to anyone at any moment, so smokers just say "Why not live it up. You could get hit by a bus five minutes from now." That'd be ironic, wouldn't it? Someone all for smoking bans, leaving a Smoke-Free Austin meeting downtown, walking out of the building and getting hit by a bus. Yep, that there's irony -- just ask Jim Ficks.

"Jim Ficks, remember that guy? Did a jogging book, did a jogging video, and dropped dead of a massive heart attack, when? When he was f*****g JOGGING, thatŐs when!" -- Denis Leary- No Cure For Cancer

"I'm Jim Ficks, and I'm dead now... I jogged every day, ate nothing but tofu, swam 500 laps every morning.... and I'm dead! Yul Brenner drank, smoked, and got laid every night of his life. He's dead!.... Shit! That Yul Brenner.... smoking, drinking, girls sittin' on his little cue-ball noggin every night of his life! And I'm running around a dewy track at dawn. And we're both f****n' dead." -- Bill Hicks - Relentless

OK, enough droning on and on about the plusses and minuses. Here's what to do: If you want your favorite bar, where your favorite music is played and your favorite bartender knows your favorite drink, to be non-smoking, ask the owner to have some non-smoking shows or hours, or certain nights designated as smoke-free. If a majority of the bar's patrons ask for this, or a large enough number complain about the smoke, then the owner should and probably would do something about it, even making the establishment completely non-smoking. It's good business sense to do so. If a majority of their customers want no smoke, then they will want to do what it takes to keep their business. And if a majority want there to be smoking allowed, then they will allow smoking for the very same reasons. There is absolutely no reason to make a law completely banning it across the board, eliminating all personal and professional choice. It should be completely up to the individual business owner and his/her patrons. If anti-smokers want their right to go where they want and enjoy themselves, then they have to allow smokers the same right -- to go to a place and not have to go outside every 10 minutes, often in the rain or cold, and not really enjoy themselves when they are inside, ending up missing half the show, or conversation with friends, or whatever. In fact, if a smoker should go outside to smoke when they are at a place with mostly non-smokers (which they should), then non-smokers, when in a place where the majority are smokers, should go outside to not smoke, to get fresh air.

"Well," the non-smoker says, "you shouldn't be smoking anyway. It'll kill you, and it might be hurting me, and it's icky. Why don't you just quit?" The fact is, it's a legal drug that's literally as addictive as crack, and besides that, many smokers truly enjoy smoking. Even non-smokers enjoy having the occasional drag now and then, or bumming a smoke from a buddy after a few drinks. So look... smokers enjoy it, they're physically addicted, and it's most likely not really harming anyone all that much just to be around it and breathing in some secondhand haze, for a couple of hours, once or twice a week.

You guys having a hard time figuring out whether I'm liberal or conservative yet? Just like most people will say, I'm really neither by definition. There was a time when I was a step away from a pair of Birkenstocks, but as I've gotten older I've become more codger-y every day. And on this issue in particular, I know I'm leaning pretty hard to the right.

So.... Let the individual business owners decide what's best for their business, and let people enjoy their nights out however they please, wherever they please. Smokers have been flexible by not hollering too much (they don't have the lung capacity for it, really) about smoking bans in restaurants, offices, and other public places, because, although they don't like it, it is the fair thing to do. Non-smokers should be willing to be a little flexible too, and not directly cause musicians and clubs to lose money, your favorite bars to lose their character (you realize, Austinites, that if this new smoking ban passes, that Ginny's Little Longhorn will no longer be a smoky little beer joint, you'll never be able to sit down at a table and bum a smoke from a pal at the end of a long, sweaty night of dancing at the Continental Club or The Broken Spoke... and long-standing Austin watering holes like Lala's and Deep Eddy Cabaret, as well as most places on Sixth St., will either become patio bars or close down -- especially with our economy the way it is right now, and the fact that most bars only last a year or so to begin with), not too mention making people give up their traditions, addictions, or simple pleasures because of personal "anti-ickiness" agendas.

If you want to stop the new smoking ban, contact your local City Council Representative at: www.cityofaustin.org. If you are for the new Austin smoking ban, you should check out www.smokefreeaustin.org. Also, for you "readas" (thanks again, Bill Hicks), I highly recommend a cool book called Thank You For Smoking if you want a good kick on the subject.

Gotta go now -- I m calling the cops. My next door neighbor's smoking with the window open.

Oh yeah, by the way... Bill Hicks died in 1994 from pancreatic cancer, at age 32... Oops.