ONCE SMOKE IS DEFEATED, OVEREATING WILL BE NEXT

While I don't want to come off appearing too Freudian, I find it
interesting that so many of the activities that we adults find
pleasurable involve oral gratification. Smoking, eating and drinking
come to mind. For many, having a drink or two before a good meal and
finishing off the occasion with a good cigar or cigarette is a very
pleasurable experience. Trouble is, overindulging in any of these
activities can be seriously detrimental to one's health.

As one who finds smoking a detestable habit, and as one who is very
concerned about the health ramifications of smoking among friends and
family members, I'm against laws that ban smoking in certain locations.

I don't buy the argument that bars and restaurants are "public
places." Rather, they are privately owned entities that serve the
public on a voluntary basis. The court house, city hall, most parks,
the open space in the 400 block of downtown Wausau - those are "public
places." The public owns them.

When it comes to the matter of regulation, we know that it doesn't pay
to outlaw the practice of consuming alcoholic beverages. Prohibition
proved that. So we won't waste time on that issue. We know pretty well
that there are few, if any health benefits associated with smoking,
albeit there is some evidence that smoking marijuana has some medical
benefits in limited cases. And we know that obesity is a major,
national health problem in this country.

As a civil libertarian (please don't confuse me with a member of the
Libertarian political party), I believe the owners of eating
establishments and bars should have the right to determine whether or
not they permit smoking in their establishments. Smoking
prohibitionists argue that places which forbid smoking often actually
experience an increase in business once they go smokeless.

If that is true, it offers incentive to places which permit smoking to
change their ways. The marketplace should be able to have a positive
effect if left to operate without meddling by crusaders.

Prohibitionists often argue that it isn't fair for non-smokers to work
in smoking environments. From what I've observed, a good many of the
workers in the food and drink establishments themselves are smokers.
If they don't, they have the option of finding employment in smokeless
businesses. Again, if owners of smoking places lose too many good
employees, they would have an incentive to change policies.

Given that we know that obesity takes a similar toll on the nation's
health as does smoking, if we forbid people who want to enjoy a drink
or two from smoking when eating out, would it not make sense to have
drinking establishments where one could smoke, but where food is
forbidden? Hey, fair is fair! It makes sense to me.

Jerry Buerer is a reader from Wausau.