Fiery Exchanges

After an uncomfortable and heated social moment broke out this past weekend between two people I know (one very well and one barely) due to conversation about the potential DC smoking ban, it has been on my mind. I knew people cared about this issue, but I didn’t realize how passionate people could get about it when someone disagreed with their point of view.

First let me say that I am a non-smoker and I have only smoked about 5 cigarettes in my life. Each time, I have felt disgusting afterward, but at the time I lit up, it seemed appropriate. However, just because I don’t participate in something, doesn’t mean I don’t think others should participate in it if it works for them and as long as it doesn’t infringe upon someone else’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That said….

I was reluctant to even get into this debate because often I don’t feel like I fit into either side. I am not a smoker who would be upset if smoking was banned in establishments I frequent, nor am a non-smoker who thinks the government ought to be watching out for my “clean” lungs and well-being. I am a non-smoker who chooses not to smoke, but often chooses to hang out with people who do happen to smoke and go to establishments where smoking is allowed. Sort of like the cultural identity-crises of most of my life, I don’t seem to fit in nice and neatly anywhere.

Today I was scanning some morning news, when I came upon this article in the George Washington University school newspaper about the imposed smoking ban at an apartment building on campus for low-income elderly people. This article illustrates just how some intrusive rules can be promoted under the guise of making life a little safer for everyone. The housing project is a joint venture between the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, who operates the building, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who funds it. This makes the debate all the more interesting. Something that made me chuckle was that on its website, St. Mary’s Court prides itself as allowing “persons of all racial, ethnic, social, political, and religious backgrounds”. I imagine this is language contributed by the HUD award and not by the church side of things, but religion is a topic for another day. And so is, perhaps, the idea of federally-subsidized housing.

I must say that after I read the article, I was outraged. I mean I was really upset by the news that the building’s Board would ban smoking throughout the building. It doesn't seem clear that there is a reasonable way to ensure no smoking in a person's own apartment. However, the notion of their "3 strikes and you are out" policy - as in, people could be evicted - was enough to anger me further. Now it appears questionable whether or not the Board could really throw anyone out of the building for such a violation. However, at the very least, it is alarming to think that this is what the building's leadership had to offer as some sort of compromise to those who want a smoke-free building. What you smell may not only be smoke, but an eviction.

I am sure the air will smell cleaner, while maybe preventing future building fires , and the older folks may add another day or two to their sunset years, but I was still upset. Mainly because I saw this as yet another paternalistic step to prohibit private behavior for the public good. I don’t see that I have anything to gain or lose in this particular debate. I don’t necessarily think that a smoking ban will keep me that much healthier. (Now banning work-related stress is a different story!) It seems to me that even those of us who don't smoke and don't mind others who do need to be more vocal. I think that genuine justice requires all of us to become involved in even the issues that don’t seem to directly affect us. After all, one day it may not be an issue that just affects "them" but rather suddenly it may be about "us".