Stogie News: Anti-Smoking Groups Pushing National Ban

Last December – following the passage of ballot initiatives in Nevada and Ohio – over half of all Americans were living in a state, county, or municipality with a smoking ban in place.

Yet within “a few years,” all of America could be smoke-free. That according to Bronson Frick, professional mouthpiece for the anti-smoking group that goes by the Orwellian name “Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.”

The group, which has previously been known to use false and misleading information to whip its donors into an anti-smoking frenzy, recently trumpeted on their website that 50.2 percent of Americans now live under anti-smoking laws. More recently, in an Associated Press article, Frick said the group has plans to make these bans nationwide:

”The movement for smoke-free air has gone from being a California oddity to the nationwide norm,” said Bronson Frick, the group’s associate director. ”We think 100 percent of Americans will live in smoke-free jurisdictions within a few years.”

But smoking bans haven’t just been spreading from state to state, city to city. They are also becoming increasingly extreme. And much like the anti-smoking movement as a whole, these most extreme bans are gaining traction in California:

The Southern California city of Calabasas broke new ground for the United States in spring 2006 when it banned smoking in all public areas, including sidewalks. As of March 1, Emeryville will have anti-smoking laws almost as tough as Calabasas, with new widespread smoking bans, including in parks and on footpaths.

San Francisco now bans smoking in city parks, golf courses, and public squares, and Belmont made international news in November with its pending proposal to ban smoking citywide, except in detached, single-family homes.

And anti-smoking agitators seem determined to push their agenda into uncharted areas, such as adoption. One such group, ASH, proudly described a distraught couple that were refused an adoption because the husband smokes (though only outdoors):

A heartbroken couple has been told they cannot adopt a child because he smokes, even though he says he never smokes indoors. Indeed, the prohibition stands until he quits smoking for six months and provides medical documentation that he is no longer a smoker.

With bans and other anti-smoking laws on the march all across the country, it is important to remember that historically these trends don’t last. But, still, with so much anti-smoking fervor in the air (pardon the pun), now seems like a good time to review the case against smoker discrimination.

-Patrick S