To smokers and nonsmokers.

I am a smoker. I am not an across-the-board apologist for smokers, though. I recognize that second-hand smoke is harmful to people. I recognize that, when nonsmokers go to bars and out to dinner, they don't necessarily want to be standing in a cloud of smoke all night. That having been said, it is my perfectly legal right to smoke. I think if we come to an understanding, we could make this whole tobacco debate obsolete.

I, as a smoker, agree not to smoke in bars, restaurants, and enclosed areas like elevators when nonsmokers are present. I agree not to smoke if I am sitting outside in close proximity to a nonsmoker, unless for some reason the nonsmoker is sitting in a designated smoking area. I shall define "close proximity" as "anywhere that the smoke might invade the nonsmokers personal space, either because of the breeze or because of my proximity to the nonsmoker." I agree never, ever, to smoke in a nonsmoker's home unless they give me permission (and they rarely do; Amy Sedaris is such a doll for putting out ashtrays). Ditto for not smoking in a nonsmoker's car, although I will unabashedly smoke in rental cars and trucks, regardless of the rules in place, unless it's some really posh car. I will not smoke in large crowds unless there are other smokers around. All of these concessions go double when there is a pregnant woman or child involved.

As nonsmokers, I expect, in return for my courtesy, that you stop coughing pointedly if you pass me in a parking lot where my fiancee and I are smoking next to my car. It's rude, and you're standing far enough away when you walk by that the smoke isn't bothering you in the slightest. If you're not, walk a little further away. I was already there, next to my car, so you could walk a little further away, and there would be no problems. I also demand that you stop giving me lectures about how bad smoking is. I know how bad smoking is. I choose to do it regardless of the health risks. I also demand that you concede that, outside of a certain radius in an open area (i.e., outdoors), smoking is not harmful to others due to secondhand smoke. It's really just not. Smoke dissipates, and smokers don't create nearly as much smoke as, say, cars produce exhaust. Let's not all end up like Santa Ana, CA, where you can't smoke outside anywhere on public property. Let's be reasonable.

Speaking of reasonable, let's talk politics a bit. First, I don't think it's fair to tax cigarettes until they're absolutely unaffordable. Smoking is the vice of the poor; let us have something, for Christ's sake. In California, until June of 2006, the tax was 46.76%. That's ridiculous. I don't care what the money is going to. I don't care if it's going to deaf, one-legged blind children. I think that if the taxes are going toward something, we should all be paying the taxes. It's not quite fair to tax me because I have a vice, especially since so many laws are in place now to prevent me from hurting others with my habit Imagine the revolt if we had outrageous taxes on pornography (they're talking about it) or junk food. The government is specifically targeting things that they deem "unhealthy, unwholesome" and taxing them to death to pay for other things--God knows what other things. We really should not be letting them nickel and dime us for everything we're worth, especially considering that the majority of the people who are likely to indulge in things like smoking and junk food are not at the high end of the economic scale in America. Rich people eat organic hippie food. We eat from the 7-11. I'm not trying to make a gross generalization or start a class war, I'm just pointing out an obvious difference between the classes. So stop taxing our vices.

Secondly, I think that the absolute law that there is no smoking in public in certain cities, anywhere, is unnecessary and contrary to the spirit of our free market economy. We don't need laws to regulate smoking in restaurants, bars, and public facilities; the power of the free market will do that for us. Here's the thing: if you're a nonsmoker, you will gravitate toward nonsmoking establishments IF you're that up in arms about it. If your favorite smoking establishments lose enough business from nonsmokers gravitating away from it, they will make it nonsmoking. Simple as that. If they don't, then at least they get to make that decision for themselves. Too many liberties are being taken away from Americans today, and I think that decision is one that should fall under the jurisdiction of individual business owners. There is a certain bar in Columbus, Ohio that I used to frequent, a dive bar that felt like home. Always the same patrons, same bartenders, a real family-type atmosphere. When the smoking ban was enacted in Columbus, it lasted for about five minutes in this bar; people wanted to go there, and they wanted to smoke. There weren't nonsmokers in this bar. If they came in, they usually didn't stay long, and not because of the smoking--usually because of the atmosphere, which I won't describe in detail in case somebody, somewhere, is reading this and wants to bust them. It was more economical for this bar to risk paying the fines than to ban their customers from smoking. I think that is a decision that should be in the hands of business owners. And if you don't like smoking, don't go places that support smokers. You're not more special because you don't smoke and I do. You don't get to go anywhere you want while I have to hide in alleys, behind corners, and pretend that I don't smoke. I think this is one instance of segregated society that could actually work. If you're a nonsmoker and a business allows smoking, they don't want or need your business. So get over it.

It's really just a matter of mutual consideration. I won't smoke around you, and you loosen the vise-grip. That's all.