Neo-temperance is inevitable and it's coming to Virginia. Since the Virginia Legislature won't force businesses to throw smokers out into the streets, the city of Alexandria will use zoning laws to do so. Virginia has a Dillon Rule meaning they cannot pass laws more restrictive than state law. But they do control zoning, and smoking is about to become a criteria for zoning permits. (More evidence that this is about property rights rather than smoking.)

"This is something we all wanted," said Mayor William D. Euille (D). "It would be nice if the state would mandate and make it happen. But obviously they're passing the buck on this . . . so we need to move forward to do what we need to do, and we found the loophole to do it."

Euille said the city's proposal was a result of "creative, outside-the-box" thinking.

Alexandria would seize control of the smoking issue with such mundane tools as use permits. When a bar or restaurant came to the city to request a permit, the city would require it to be smoke-free before granting the permit. Restaurants that have permits must agree to go smoke-free in three months or risk future restrictions or even closure.

Virginia did pass an asinine law that requires businesses that allow smoking to post a huge sign saying so. The theory is that restaurants will ban smoking rather than post a sign and risk losing business now that customers know beforehand that smoking is permitted. (Us non-smokers are apparently too stupid to figure it out without a big sign.)

I had thought that people were generally pro-choice. But for some reason, when it comes to smoking there is no choice. If you want to enjoy a cigarette or cigar after a nice expensive meal, too bad. Smokers don't have any rights, and neither do business owners who want to tap that market.

As we slide down the slippery slope, future smoke bans will include cars (where children are present), private homes (where children and/or employees may be present), and eventually outdoors (where smoke is free to roam where anyone might be present).

So why should a non-smoker care what happens to smokers and their stinky habit? Well, here is just a sampling of my reasons:

This is my body. There are many like it, but this one is mine. And any sort of nagging bullshit about what I can and can't put into it is wrong. This week it's smoking, next week it'll be drinking and fast food. These whiny little piss-ants aren't man enough to walk up and tell you to your face, instead they use the police power of the government to try to run your life. If you think I shouldn't have that extra roll, why don't you come over and try taking it off my plate? I'd like to see you try.

It's all about freedom of choice. People have a wide selection of smoking and non-smoking restaurants from which to choose. But that's not good enough for some people. They want all restaurants to be non-smoking, just in case they some day might want to eat there. Never mind what the property owner wants, his rights don't count.

Temperance leads to crime which leads to death. In New York City where a single packet of cigarettes cost $7, gangs are killing each other over the selling of buttlegged cigarettes. It's big business on the street, and fights can break out over selling on the wrong street corner or at the wrong price. Teenagers just trying to make a buck have been gun downed for undercutting the prices of the local street thugs.

Temperance leads to crime which leads to bigger government. Many of today's gun laws can trace their roots right back to the temperance movement. Prohibition of alcohol lead directly to the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the horrible RICO statutes wherein nearly anything can be prosecuted as a conspiracy to commit organized crime. Then there's the whole Drug Enforcement Administration which was stood up 30 years ago to arrest people for violating the various temperance laws. Currently the DEA has offices across the globe and costs Billions (with a B) of dollars to maintain.

Temperance leads to crime which leads to terrorism. With a huge profit motive and all these dollars flowing around, much of the money eventually finds it's way into the hands of terrorists. You may think that buying bootlegged smokes is a victimless crime and that you're only sticking it to the government, but you may be inadvertently funding the next terror attack. Terrorists need money to do what they do, and they aren't above using our own temperance laws against us.

Over-regulation leads to under-regulation. When prohibition of alcohol took affect, your average Joe didn't think twice about civil disobedience. Speak-easies popped up and alcohol was available for anyone with the money to buy it. The price went up, the quality went down, and any of the laws that controlled product quality or safety were moot.

As neo-temperance takes hold people will gradually start to ignore anti-smoking laws. That is, when cigarettes are outlawed only outlaws will have cigarettes. When that happens, the government will be powerless to control what goes into cigarettes. They could become more harmful, even deadly depending on how cheaply they're produced. Laws governing the nicotine, tar, and carcinogens produced from tobacco will be worthless.

And what about the children? There will be no way to limit access to cigarettes. All those age-limits that anti-smokers pushed through a few years back will be negated once cigarettes are sold in mass quantities on the streets. By over-regulating the product, they'll actually increase it's availability to minors. The only thing between a child and a cigarette will be the conscience of the dealer.

Category:  Pleasure Police
Comments (1)   Trackback (0)   top   link me