Bill Conroy (who is, incidentally, smarter than me in every way) wrote that I "argue, essentially, that because there is a minimum wage law, there should also be laws banning smoking in the workplace."  Actually, I used the minimum wage analogy to disprove the assertion that smoking bans were bad simply because a society of true choice, where small groups of people could easily control the conditions of their work and play, would make bans unnecessary.  I stand by that logic.  I didn't say smoking bans were good, because I'm not sure they are and the analogy doesn't work that way.  I actually proposed places have true smoking and non-smoking sections, with a demilitarized zone, like Amy Casada-Alaniz's current workplace.

I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind smoking bans, mostly because I don't understand them, and I know damn well they aren't coming from the workers.  Still, bad motives don't prove bad policy.  Upton Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" to call attention to and change the horrible working conditions in the meatpacking industry and the quality of life in working class America in general.  The laws regulating meat for the eater's safety, therefore, came from quite the wrong motives from this perspective, but may nonetheless have improved working conditions slightly.  I'm still not showing the moral courage of actually defending smoking bans, but just pointing out that they have to be attacked in themselves more than the motives behind them (though I'd like people's theories on what the motives are).

The fact that workers have not been the force behind smoking bans doesn't mean much about their stance either, given that we in the retail and service sectors tend to be so disorganized.  Even though some of us in this discussion work in bars or have friends who do, we don't know the general opinion on smoking bans!  (In Amherst and Framingham Massachusetts my impression is that more favor bans than not; in Australia the Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Union supports bans, citing health risks to its workers.)

Cigarette smoking simply isn't as simple as other drug issues-- using any other drug, in itself, doesn't hurt anyone else but smoking in public, to some small extent, does-- at least people who work in all-smoking workplaces like bars.  The stress of life in a work-like-crazy-to-stay-in-place so "the economy" grows 2 percent while we use up our own health and the world's natural resources and environmental strength-- that is of course a more important issue, by itself and as a cause of unhealthy drug use.  (Just to point out another hypocrisy of the state's crackdown on public smoking is its promotion of state lottery gambling, a far surer way to ruin lives.)

Mostly we as organizers and activists cannot let smoking divide us physically (arguing like this is cool).  At the J-school in Bolivia it did not.  It's fine with me to go by smokers' rule when we all get together.  But what's the smoking policy when we're not dependent on government-regulated restaurants or bars but on our own community-made and enjoyed meals?