SMOKING BANS FILTERING DOWN TO LOCAL LEVEL ACROSS COUNTRY

Way back when, local legend has it, when George Rogers and the late
Eddie Harrington were running against each other for mayor of New
Bedford, Mr. Harrington brought a big ol' cigar with him into the
radio studio so he could blow smoke in Mr. Rogers' face during the
debate.

Thirty years have gone by and smokers are still No. 1 on City
Councilor Rogers' hit list. There are plenty of things that Mr. Rogers
will say he thought of first, but there's no doubt he has hammered
away for 30 years for bans on smoking.

Mr. Rogers has now teamed up with City Councilor Steven C. Sharek with
a proposal to ban smoking at all restaurants in the city. It's a
proposal bound to have the anti-government crowd hooting with derision
at one more bellyaching intrusion by liberal do-gooders.

Funny thing, though. Those who demand that we use education instead of
laws to curb smoking are witnessing a curious phenomenon: Once people
in general learn enough about smoking, and especially the effects of
second-hand smoke on non-smokers, especially children, people are more
and more willing to pass laws restricting smoking.

That's how California got away with passing a ban on smoking in all
restaurants, clubs and bars. That's how one city after another gets
away with passing ordinances against smoking anywhere in a public,
confined area. Some people even want to go so far as to ban smoking
outdoors, which is a stretch. But the trend is unmistakable; what Mr.
Sharek and Mr. Rogers are doing is not remarkable anymore.

Smokers haven't done themselves any favors. Many of them are
considerate and would never smoke without permission in someone's home
or car, or even a restaurant. Bless 'em. Others, though, are oblivious
to the discomfort and even ill health of others, preferring to let
people have it with a speech about their rights. They're libertarians
as long as they don't have asthma or allergies; then it's a different
story.

The city councilors, who are asking for public hearings on a smoking
ban (those should be entertaining) point out that a handful of
restaurants in New Bedford, Dartmouth and other communities
voluntarily ban smoking anywhere on the premises. Presumably, they are
willing to trade a few ticked off smokers for a number of non-smokers
who enjoy the clear air. But of course these smoking bans are purely
voluntary, and in truth many people don't care much either way whether
people smoke in restaurants.

Calling for an ordinance against smoking raises the bar; it calls for
proof that smoking is not merely a nuisance, but a health hazard to
non-smokers. Today, only someone marooned for 25 years on a desert
island hasn't seen the evidence piling up about such hazards.

Yes, smokers enjoy smoking with their meals, just as tobacco chewers
enjoy a good chaw and a good spit. Finally, inevitably, both habits
are being put in the same category by a population persuaded by
education rather than dictated by force of law. These non-smoking
ordinances aren't happening in a vacuum; they're coming because people
want them. Smokers complain, but their complaints are becoming an
anachronism -- curious, and ever more indefensible. Someday, when
people owe longer, healthier lives and cleaner public places to the
smoking bans, we can blame it all on the liberals as we wax nostalgic
about ashtrays and spittoons. And George Rogers will have the last
laugh.