Asylum, this is a little long but I think it answers your major points.
Some years ago I lived in Virginia where the law allowed smoking nearly anywhere. High school students forged their parents’ signatures for permission to smoke in the campus patio. Grocery store produce aisles were strewn with cigarette butts. The local newspaper editorialized against the only three restaurants in town that offered nonsmoking sections.
So I went out of my way to patronize these restaurants. I endured insults when I asked people to put out their cigarettes in elevators and movie theaters (about the only two places it was forbidden). I found out what subsidiaries Philip Morris owned and stopped using their products. I moved out of the state a month before I was old enough to vote.
Maybe things have changed since I left, but the tobacco interests are powerful enough there that I doubt it.
Now that I’m no longer a Virginian I leave that matter alone. Some things are local issues. So I concentrate on where I live now.
In my opinion, if tobacco smoking had never been tried before and someone introduced it today, the law would soon ban it. It’s an addictive drug that causes health problems and has little or no practical use. I don’t particularly like to see my tax dollars going to subsidize its cultivation or to pay the Medicare expenses of aging addicts. Worst of all, there’s a growing body of evidence that tobacco-related health problems aren’t limited to active smokers.
If tobacco prohibition were feasible I would support it. Since this drug has a long history in our culture and about fifteen percent of the people in my state are addicts, a more practical approach is to shape the laws so that fewer children start and so that people who don’t choose to risk exposure to tobacco smoke don’t have to deal with it.
If it were up to me I’d take a different approach from the proposal the Washington Post reports. Going about the right thing in the wrong way is a good method of inspiring a backlash.
I’d empower fire marshals to ban all outdoor smoking during stage 5 fire alerts. I’d make underage possession of cigarettes a misdemeanor, just like underage alcohol possession is a misdemeanor, and charge a $30 fine for violations.
Ultimately I’d prefer to take the sale of tobacco products out of convenience stores. All too often the clerks are good friends of the underage customers. Sixty percent of smokers still start by age fourteen, so something’s wrong with our current system. Several other states run alcoholic beverage control stores. I’d like to adapt that concept in California with tobacco.
