By Christopher Orlet on 2.22.08 @ 12:08AM
We may complain endlessly about them but, in a democracy, we get the laws we deserve.
If it is indeed true, as George Bernard Shaw commented, that
democracy ensures we get the government we deserve, then I have
little sympathy for my neighbors who whine about the smoking ban as
they puff their Camel filters in the parking lot outside the
bowling alley in the freezing February rain.
Besides -- I like to point out -- we voted for the shysters and
party hacks who passed the ban. Or -- more likely -- we failed to
vote at all. I then call attention to the fact that right next door
in Missouri, where the Republican Party still has a detectible
pulse, there are no such bans. And none planned. "Well hell, let's
go to Missouri and smoke!" the smokers roar, piling into their
pickups, as the rain falls on an empty parking lot.
And yet the smokers are not without hope. Less than a year after
Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the smoking ban, and gushed,
"This law will save lives. The realities are that smoking kills
people...My only regret is that this took so long," the news out of
Springfield is that the owners of taverns, casinos and strip clubs
may soon be able to buy a "special license" that will allow their
patrons to smoke inside.
So all of that talk about saving lives from second-hand smoke
was all just a bunch of...second-hand smoke. Or was it just another
Chicago-style scam so the state could sell expensive smoking
licenses to bowling alley operators? The fact is officeholders
thought the smoking ban was a terrific idea -- or at least an
efficient way to get those annoying single-issue pressure groupees
out of their offices and off their backs -- until they discovered
that Illinois would have a budget shortfall of $750 million next
year, and learned how much tax revenue the state made off its
smokers, boozers, gamblers and stripshow devotees.
Illinois bar owners report that revenue is down in some cases by
50 percent. Casinos report that the ban has caused a 17 percent
drop in gaming. I haven't spoken to any strippers recently, but I
bet they are feeling the pinch too.
Anyway the fish down at the bowling alley don't give a fig if
their elected officials are hypocrites. To them, the terms
politician and hypocrite have become synonymous. All they care
about is that their local publican purchases one of them new
smoking licenses so that they can come in from the cold.
Whether bar owners purchase special licenses will depend, I
suppose, on how much the special licenses go for. Many adult
entertainment venues and casinos are owned by multi-billion dollar
gaming and adult entertainment corporations. They can easily afford
to purchase a truckload of special licenses. Your mom and pop
saloon owner, however, may find the cost a bit a bit more painful
to bear.
ALL OF THIS IGNORES the bigger picture. A recent St. Louis
Post-Dispatch story quoted the manager of a southern Illinois
VFW Post complaining about the ban: "Are you going to tell those
guys who defended your country that they can't smoke?" he said
pointing to men in VFW hats. "They fought for those freedoms."
Well, why not? The state is already hassling innocent motorists
at sobriety and seatbelt checkpoints. Sobriety checkpoints nab few
drunk drivers, but they do enrich the municipality's coffers as
officers hand out hundreds of citations for petty offenses, like
failure to wear a seatbelt. (National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration figures show that the largest reduction in
alcohol-related traffic deaths occur in state's that do not use
sobriety checkpoints.) And when elected officials aren't busy with
the now annual drive to lower blood alcohol limits (until a single
swig of lager makes one "legally drunk"), they are making it easier
for police to watch your every move via ubiquitous traffic cameras.
Sorry, but I didn't hear the Veterans of Foreign Wars squealing
about those infringements of their rights.
These aren't the quaint, looney laws that you read about on the
comics page. ("A Kirkland, Illinois, law forbids bees to fly over
the village or through any of its streets.") Instead these laws
create new classes of criminal behaviors; conduct that only
yesterday was perfectly legal. Cynically the state assumes that,
with time, the masses will get used to fewer rights, and to an
ever-expanding, ever-meddling nanny state. All is well as long we
are stripped of our rights gradually and imperceptibly.
Earlier this week Eric Peters wrote this in regards to mandatory
seatbelt laws, "Since it's probably a losing battle to fight
this creeping nannyism head on, one must adopt guerrilla tactics of
evasion and obfuscation to assert one's right to make decisions
about personal matters for oneself."
I was struck by how much this sounded like life under the old
Soviet regime. You couldn't fight the Reds, so you did little
things that made you feel like you still had some control over your
life. You cracked jokes about the regime in the privacy of your
home, hoping the walls weren't bugged, or your friends wouldn't rat
you out.
Yes, it is pitiful. But that is what we've come to.
topics:
Law