Up In Smoke
Or
Cancer Sticks and Rolling Stones

The Eighteenth Amendment, a.k.a. the Volstead Act, was enacted into law on January 20th, 1920. It was a romanticized Golden Age for drinkers and drunks, for gangsters, bootleggers and rum-runners. What could have been better than skirting a ridiculous law at the local speakeasy, knocking the secret knock, and entering a hidden lair of hot jazz, cold gin, and exuberant scofflaws? As the U.S. government came to realize, regulating legalized liquor sales was more effective, in the long run, than trying to catch up with new and inventive ways to get around preventative laws; effectively on March 4, 1933, Prohibition was repealed. More entertainingly, the classic .Beer Baron. episode of .The Simpsons. (titled .Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment.) addresses the issue of Prohibition and new hats. In that episode, the ban of alcohol sale and consumption was also overturned, with the assistance of a giant catapult. However, this is hardly the time or place for a historical lesson, or even an address of relevant pop culture disguised as a treatise on drinking and/or getting drunk. The example was only brought up as a point of reference to what is happening in the state of Connecticut in the upcoming weeks: the state-ordained ban on smoking in bars, effective April 1st, 2004. As of October 1st, 2003, smoking in restaurants was no longer permitted, and bar owners were granted an additional 6 months to prepare for the statute in their establishments. Certain drinking holes have exceptions, though. Private clubs are not bound by the legislation, which means if you are a member of the VFW, or the Elks, or a similar association, you may be allowed to legally enjoy a cigarette, cigar, pipe, or what-have-you, in the same fashion as before. What the law affects is the neighborhood bar, the downtown club, and the places we all go to unwind after working a busy day or week. There are several, several arguments to be made: pro vs. con, health vs. individual rights, and hot-button issues vs. over-legislation, just to name a few. Some argue that smoking has not actually proven to cause any type of cancer, emphysema, or any other health malady, and there are even more that know somebody directly affected by any of those diseases. And although profiling any class or sub-set of people is frowned upon from law enforcement on down, you can also draw generalizations into the types of people that would be for and against this topic. A brief digression: Recently, the epidemic of obesity vis-a-vis the fast food industry has been trotted out in front of us, in Congress, in newspapers, in opinion polls. The power that be are investigating the viability of regulating the nutritional value in the foods that we eat when we go out, whether it is picking up a burger on the highway or having a pizza delivered on a Saturday night. The large concern, no pun intended, is that as a nation, we are incapable of making our own decisions regarding our health, our self-control, and our own accountability. Just because a random family features 4 members who are 5.8. and 265 pounds, average, does that mean that I can.t ask for extra special sauce? Since so many think a balanced meal means fries on the right and beverage on the left, is it right for the government to tell me what to do when I have a craving for gravy fries with a side of ranch dressing, topped with fudge? Another bit which has quieted down slightly, yet not disappeared, is the seatbelt law that has been on the books for several years now. It is hard to imagine the sort of person who does not know that it is required to fasten your seatbelt when you get behind the driver seat in a car, or if you are the front seat passenger. Most people are just fine with that, and yet there is a vocal opposition to doing so mandatorily. They argue that safety studies are also inconclusive at best, and that a seatbelt might keep one trapped inside a piece of fiery wreckage (in a worst-case scenario). The position furthermore says that a grown individual, in his/her own vehicle, should be allowed to make his/her own choice on the matter. No matter who is at fault in an accident, whether or not the seatbelt is buckled is NOT the cause of it. The question is therefore begged, whose hand needs to be holding ours, whose tissue wiping our nose? I would hate to see state-issued brown jumpsuits with black boots issued to everyone, at government cost, because expressive colors, patterns or designs are deemed to precious to be left up to us. It seems far-fetched, but so does federal regulation of Quarter Pounders. To carry a point even further, religious extremism kills thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, per year, and yet it is our constitutional guarantee, as United States citizens, that we are free to worship as we like. (The damn French are banning headscarves and yarmulkes in their schools.we don.t want to be like the French, do we?) We have a choice in the matter that, unless repealed, cannot be taken away from us. Millions of people are on the Muslim backlash right now, but mosques are still populated on streets that also feature churches, chapels and synagogues. I do not want to subject myself to the Muslim faith, so guess what? I DON.T GO TO A MOSQUE. I would love to have the opportunity to have a child, so guess what? I WILL ARGUE AGAINST MY PERSONAL SIGNIFICANT OTHER HAVING AN ABORTION. I do not want to subject myself to a husband, so guess what? I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE A GAY MARRIAGE. (That is a can of worms I will not open, but you catch my drift.) The United States was formed as a refuge from oppression, from tyranny, and from persecution. The freedom of choice is taken for granted so much here that we lose sight of it, and when those choices are slowly being taken away from us, the majority shrug their shoulders and say .Damn.remember the good old days?. Now we are lucky to choose from two political parties, three internet service providers, and four leading brands of toilet paper. On the other hand, we have 85 kinds of soda at the local 7-11, there are 16 lousy movies at the multiplex, and over 700 different porn links in my inbox every single day. Some choices are good and need to be made, some are totally superfluous and unnecessary. Is it ridiculous and irresponsible to offer a choice to people? For every suit that wants to have their Chocotini in a pristine marble bar, with skylights and fountains, in a smoke-free environment, there are a thousand regular guys (and girls) who want to have a can of Bud and two or three Lucky Strikes over a game of pool after work, before they go home to their 3 obese kids and second-shift-working wife. I know Connecticut is a small state, but it is big enough for both kinds. If a bar owner wants to offer smoking to his clientele, why shouldn.t he/she be allowed to? Restaurants will be the compromise . they can have the restaurants. Bars are social environs, and those who want a smoke-free atmosphere should be granted that. But the gate needs to swing both ways, because who doesn.t love lesbians? (Well, besides me, but that.s a personal problem.) I won.t tell anyone to smoke. It.s likely not good for you. I won.t tell anyone to not smoke (except kids, but they are kids.I.m speaking about adults who are .allowed. to make their own decisions). I just believe that there has got to be a better way, and if we don.t find one, we are paving the way for book-burning. Other Articles by Justin: "Shakespeare's Monkey Or Elm City Blues" "Hairy Psalms" Or "I Think I Bent My Wookie" "Noodle Soup" Or "How to deal with the random one-night hook-up." "Give a Brother a Right of Way" Or "Yield Your Beer" "A Sobering Time of Year" Or "Single for St. Paddy's Day" "A Giant-Sized Thirst" Or "Ravin' About Football" "Red White and Steamed" Or "Bush League Justice" "If This is the Fall, Why Do I Feel Springy?" Or "Where the Hell is this Rambling Jackass Going Now?"   Justin would like to hear your questions about drinking etiquette. Feel free to email him at vitamin.j@drunks.com. Your question maybe answered in Justin's next article.