In the near future the municipality of Anchorage intends to extend its ban on smoking in public places to several key businesses. Nothing controversial in that, people's right to work in a smoke free environment should be enforced.
However it does contain one controversial element.
At the moment in-home daycare facilities could in theory (if the owner was particularly stupid and pretty much an asshole) allow smoking within the premises - they'd be shut down if the licensing authorities found out, but you couldn't fine them or remove the children. The ban under consideration would make it illegal for anyone to smoke in their own home if they are watching someone else's children.
So what's wrong with that?
Let's start with the issue of smoking in daycare facilities. I may be naïve, but it seems to me that when you consider than under the current daycare licensing certificate issued by the city, it's already not permissible to run a daycare and allow smoking within the premises - surely this issue is covered?
However we don't like smokers, so we've decided to write laws that invade the privacy of a person's home. I don't like guns, but I think I'd have just a tad of a problem if I tried to get a law passed that banned them from the homes of grandparents that look after children.
While we may strongly disapprove of Granny smoking while she's watching our children, if we choose to bring our children to her home that's not something we have the right to complain about. If you want to spend a night free of kids, and you care enough to want them in a smoke free environment, find a baby sitter. Don't play cheap with your children's health.
You see to me this takes the responsibility away from the parents (who are excluded from this law incidentally). Your children are your responsibility, and you should act appropriately, especially when deciding who should look after them while you're away.
But this is just one part of a growing trend to vilify the real victims of big tobacco.
Currently smokers fit into two categories. Those we consider victims (children) and those we discriminate against with taxation and exclusion.
The ones we treat in this manner grew up during a time when big tobacco deliberately targeted children with commercials (during children's TV programming), during a time when Hollywood glorified the act of smoking (just about every leading person smoked), even sports heroes smoked - and sporting events were sponsored by the tobacco industry.
The decision to smoke was made at the same age of those we currently consider victims. They became addicted to cigarettes as children, and now pay the consequences as adults.
Giving up is not exactly as simple as deciding not to smoke any more. I know, I've done it - it took three attempts, including one in which I stopped smoking for nearly a year before the physical and mental addiction to this heinous product pulled me back under its influence.
What I don't understand though, is not that people don't want smokers to light up in public places, or why they think they should pay higher premiums for health insurance. What I don't understand is why they are the target of people's anger, not the companies that produce this product.
Why are smokers taxed in discriminatory ways? Tax money that's then used in general budgets to pay for roads, teacher's salaries, not healthcare or prevention. If you think that's where the money is going, you're dead wrong. A tiny part of it goes to these places, on a federal level less than 1/10th. On a state level less than that, on a city level almost nothing at all.
Who are we to make teachers unwilling profiteers of the misery of smoking? Who are we to decide that it's acceptable to profit from addiction?
So it's okay to make a product that kills and is both physically and mentally addictive legal? We then allow people to become addicted to that product, then we profit from it - doesn't that make us no better than a street dealer passing out free crack or heroine?
Sure there are assholes. Those that insist on smoking in entrance ways, those that won't take it outside. But these are generally the same assholes you meet in every walk of life.
Shouldn't we wait to find out if someone is one of those assholes before we decide how to treat them?
Oh I'm sure that many of you don't agree with my point of view - which is exactly why I'm saying these things.
Since when has it become okay to discriminate against people because we don't like something they do? I'm not talking about common sense health issues.
The next time you say something about smokers, change the word smoker to African American or Latino.
I'm not suggesting the discrimination smokers face is anything like that faced by minorities.
However consider this. You can refuse someone a job because they smoke. If you look at studies into certain diseases or conditions you will find some ethnicities are more likely to become susceptible to certain conditions. Would it be okay to deny them a job because of this?
What about denying people a job because they are gay and might get aids? What about denying people a job because they DO have aids?
Taxation to raise money to offset healthcare costs? Not really, where do you ask the doctor to send the bill when your visit is brought about by smoking related issues?
Would it be okay to tax children for eating happy meals? That IS the same thing, because we DO profit from these taxes. Anchorage actually offsets property taxes with the money raised from smokers - Anchorage is NOT the only city that does this, it's probably the only city that admits it though, in fact they're proud of it. That means teachers DO get paid from the profits of tobacco sales - and the city's legislature and mayor are proud of it.
So why is this okay? Why is it okay to hate a group of people that are hopeless addicted to something we don't like? We made it legal for them to buy, we made it legal for them to use, but we don't like it? Why don't we do more to help, as we help those addicted to illegal drugs or those afflicted with terrible diseases? When will we understand that addiction IS a disease, and tobacco addiction is one of the worst cases of this disease?
When we decide to help these people instead of vilify them, maybe that's when we'll actually make some headway in the fight against tobacco.