My memory will be jogged by the smell: the smell of just about every indoor space back in the days when smoking was everywhere. It is the odor I remember on my clothes and on my hair brush back when I tended bar as a young man. I never smoked myself, but the second-hand smoke surrounded me like the steam in a Turkish bath when I was whipping up the whiskey sours. Remember? When every office and meeting room had ashtrays? When the smoke hung like gauze around the overhead lights in every sporting arena? When you would hear the never-ending stream of smokers’ coughs in church or at a concert?
I have to admit that I like the ban on smoking in public spaces. Up until a few months ago, people were permitted to smoke in certain diners and restaurants around where I live in Connecticut. Now all are smoke-free. I don’t know how they drew the line back then, but every so often when I was sitting at the counter working on my pancakes, someone would pull in next to me and light up. Yuck. I used to like the smell of a freshly lit cigarette. No more.
I know the arguments smokers use to defend their right to smoke in my proximity. In fact, I agree with most of them. What if I didn’t like the smell of the after-shave of the guy sitting next to me? Should there be a law to make him take his scrambled eggs out into the street? I agree with smokers who argue that the health dangers of second-hand smoke have been greatly exaggerated. There is now scientific evidence to back them up. Last year, two epidemiologists reported in the British Medical Journal on a study of 35,561 smokers and their non-smoking spouses over 40 years. The study concluded that second-hand smoke might lead to a small increase in the risk of lung cancer, but that the oft-cited 30 percent increase in the risk of heart disease is simply not supported by any evidence. All I am saying is that I like the change brought about by the smoking ban, not that it was necessary or fair to smokers to enact the smoking bans.
Where is this leading? To the way Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dealt with the brouhaha in New York City. Bloomberg has been a leader in the drive to end smoking in public places. He is an absolutist on this matter. He pushed to end smoking, first in restaurants, then in bars, then even in outdoor arenas. The way he handled the criticism over his stand has much to teach us, whether you agree with him on cigarettes or not. I have in mind those Catholic politicians (the “personally opposed, but” crowd) who tell us it is impossible to write legislation prohibiting abortion because of the public resistance that would result. They should be taking notes on Bloomberg.
Bloomberg took considerable heat from smokers. He was compared to Puritan elders, the Gestapo, Orwell’s Big Brother. His reaction? He shrugged if off. What is the right word? Insouciance? Disdain? Aplomb? Self-possession? Take your choice. Bloomberg acted as if his critics were peevish children. He would raise his eyes a bit, grimace and look away as if he had no time to waste on such immature objections to his policy. I can remember one instance, when he responded to reporters questions about the economic impact of the smoking ban on restaurants by saying, “Come on, let’s stop dwelling on this nonsense and get on with protecting the health of the people. Please…” The press conference moved on to other issues.
There are still grumblings from smokers in New York City, but not many. The restaurant owners that complained about the loss of business have quieted down. Smokers still like to eat out. If every restaurant in New York City prohibits smoking — which is now the case — there is no alternative to the smoke-free establishments. So smokers eat their meals with everyone else — heading out to the street for some quick puffs in between courses when it becomes necessary for a fix.
My point? Why can’t Catholic politicians act the same way when the topic is abortion? Why do they act as if every nuance of the “pro-choice” point of view must be answered to the satisfaction of those who favor legal abortions? Why do they get so defensive? I’m serious: The “personally opposed, but” group acts as if it will be impossible to write legislation outlawing abortion until virtually everyone in the country is pro-life.
That is not how things work. That is not what is meant by a legislative consensus. The fact that there may be ongoing opposition to a law — even heated, high-profile opposition — does not mean that the law should not be enacted. The objections of segregationists did not matter when the issue was racial justice. The objections of loggers did not hold back the environmental activists. The grumblings of those who don’t like seatbelts did not prevent the laws mandating their use.
Why would it be so hard then for a Catholic politician, when faced with an “outraged” pro-abortion activist who demands that she have the right to control her own body, to respond like Michael Bloomberg on the question of smoking? Why not say, “Please, madam — it is inappropriate to engage in sophistry when we are looking for ways to save the lives of an innocent unborn child.” The only reason I can think of for not responding that way is the possibility that the Catholic politician might not be as convinced of the inherent evil of abortion as Mayor Bloomberg is of the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Hmmm…
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
