Far too often in this politically correct world, the humble cigar smoker will find themselves in a world that does not allow them the enjoyment of the awful little habit that the past once allowed.
I am am both pleased and grateful to announce to you that such is always not the case. Regardless of what the smoke Nazis would like you to believe, there are yet places in the world, in Ohio (and even in Toledo) where a proper cigar can be purchased and smoked, and a proper cocktail can be enjoyed while doing so.
La Casa de la Habana, a Toledo purveyor of fine cigars on Monroe street just east of Tallmadge, continues to offer the true cigar smoking experience, combining an exceptional humidor with a wonderful selection of single malt scotches to create a truly memorable experience.
Equally memorable, is the relaxed atmosphere of the lounge and stellar service provided by Danielle, the mixologist working her subtle magic behind the bar. The bar and her talents are not limited to the pouring of Scotland's finest exports however, and I am reliably told that she serves one of the best Margaritas in the city.
Two separate lounge areas provide ample room, seating, and ventilation for the proper enjoyment of the tobacconist's art, and there are usually a few congenial fellow smokers to pass the time with.
While not normally using "Just Blowing Smoke" to endorse businesses (as I haven't found a way to make any money doing so), I would be doing a disservice to fellow local cigar smokers if I attempted to keep this a establishment a secret simply for my own use and enjoyment. Take advantage of one of the few guilty pleasures left in life, and feel free in fact, to tell them that I sent you their way (don't worry, they won't hold that against you). Who knows, it's even possible that one of these days you could run into a stogie-smoking curmudgeon during your visit and blow a bit of smoke together.
Enjoy ...
I was reading an editorial in the December 20th Toledo Blade about the debate for anti-smoking legislation under consideration in Michigan http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/OPINION02/712200304/-1/OPINIONand a couple of things struck me about the arguments presented in the piece. Now my opinions on smoking bans are well know from previous postings. and I won't bother to repeat information that I have already shared (though I will encourage you to go back through the archives of this blog to take a look at them). And I have to say that I am not particularly worried about the public reaction to my nasty habit. I tend to enjoy my version of this behavior like anything which society is attempting to make us feel guilty, aloone (no comments about what other nasty little habits that I might be doing alone, please). No, I have new angle on this discussion, as it pertains to this specific editorial, and it takes the form of two questions:
- If the smoking bans are the good thing that this editorial describes, and "patrons are relieved to visit local businesses without being forced to inhale a choking haze", why is the Restaurant and Bar Association fighting it so hard? I don't own a business, nor do I belong in any meaningful way to a business organization; but it strikes me that such organizations would not work against the best interests of their members. In this particular case, according to the editorial "lobbyists from the Michigan Restaurant Association and Michigan Licensed Beverage Association vowed to intensify their efforts against the ban in the Senate and win". Such incongruous behavior in a professional business organization simply makes no sense to me if the ban is good for these businesses. In fact, I would expect that what the anti-smoking crowd has told is true, that the flood of cutomers into bars and restaurants since the ban would tell such association to stand firm in getting such bans passed nationwide. So I am forced to believe that The Blade may not have all of their facts straight regarding the benefit to business that this ban presents and the position that this lobbying group holds.
- This editorial also talks about the fact that "separate smoking sections and ventilation systems simply do not fully protect nonsmokers", and that the law is necessary then in order to offer this protection to non-smokers. My question here is, is such protection actually required, and is the government obligated to provide it? Well I believe that the government is required under the Constitution to protect its citizens from physical harm, but I am not sure that second hand smoke from smoking falls under this category. If it does, that the government is required to protect us from city bus exhausts, burning leaves, fireplaces, and power plants; all of which produce smoke as well. And if smoking is the danger that is being portrayed in the study sited in the editorial, why is it legal to do so in the first place? No, the type of protection that we are talking about here is more akin to a "protection racket", something our government is becoming far too familiar with these days. This type of protection involves forced (substitute strong-armed) behavior modification, and usually extortion (in the form of taxes and egregious legislation), in order to achieve a desired goal for a vocal minority.
So my conclusions, based on the questions that I have put forward, is that:
- The Blade must in fact be wrong on this particular issue as it relates t the interests of both the owners of bars and restaurants, and their patrons. If they are not, the these owners would have been forced into banning smoking long ago, or the states (like Ohio) that had smoking bans would be seeing an unparallelled increase in business since the ban in this state passed instead of the decrease in such business and the closing of some businesses. The Blade presents no argument to this effect, so it must no be the case.
- Government protection against smoke of any kind is not guaranteed in the Constitution, and therefore does not exist. Government does not have the right, and should not intrude in the operation of businesses that allow behaviors like drinking and smoking that are perfectly legal. If they do, they exceed their authority and violate the very principles which created them.
- Debates on any subject must be based on logic and facts in order to be of value in the greater scheme of things. The Blade seems to have neither on this side in this particular case and seeks to present arguments based on a unsupportable emotional position. We think that smoking is bad for you and so we want it stopped. Now I concede that this was an Editorial and not a news story, but even opinion must be based on more than feelings if we are to take it seriously. I also find it fascinating that a business that is protected by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution should choose to support government denying rights to citizens in another area. Should they not be concerned that if these rights do not exists for business owners of bars and restaurants, that newspapers might be next on the list for encroachment.
Thanks for the attempt to sway my opinion by appealing to my compassion for my fellow man, but in this case you have failed. Perhaps you will think it is because I am a smoker myself, and therefore unwilling to accept the argument presented; but that again would simply be your opinion.
Congress, in another fit of freedom deprivation masquerading as do-gooding, is considering a bill (SCHIP - State Children's Health Initiative) to increase the tax on tobacco products in order to fund more children's health programs. In its current form, it would increase the tax on cigars to almost $10 per cigar (an increase of 20,000 %).
Now I don't know how well you have been doing lately, but at the rate that I smoke cigars, such an increase would have a serious impact on my ability to eat and pay rent.
This is a bad thing and not just for me, as the SCHIP bill has a couple of what might be considered minor flaws:
1. Families would be eligible to receive this government sponsored program even if they made a combined income of $85,000 per year
2. "Children" would be considered to be so up to the age of 25
3. Most of those smoking cigars would quit, unable to pay the tax.
4. Importers and sellers of cigars would go bankrupt and close.
5. People working for those organizations would become unemployed and add to the jobless roles and those needing public assistance.
6. Cigars, not being sold, would not generate the expected revenue to maintain the SCHIP initiative, which would already have become law.
7. You the non-cigar smokers, would then have to pick up the tab for the program, estimated to be from 35 to 50 Billion dollars.
So even those of you who do not share my disgusting, smelly habit will eventually pay for it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not so mean spirited that I want to see children unhealthy (even 25 year-old ones). I merely question the ability of a government that can't seem to keep roads in repair and borders controlled to manage the health of anyone, let alone a bunch of helpless kids. Likewise I am dismayed to find that my government, having decided that cigar smoking is bad for me (the real reason that they feel that it is OK to do this to me), seeks to perform behavior modification through taxation.
So don't be surprised if one of these days I am forced to change the title of my blog and the picture displayed (and that would be a shame, since you might then be forced to view my countenance unobscured by the smoke), all for the sake of honesty. Then my name too could be added to the list of victims whose rights and freedoms have been trampled on by a runaway government nanny in search of complete political correctness for all of its citizens.
I had previously posted this onto another blog site (on myspace), but thought that its topic was a fitting one for the first posting on this blog...
As most of you can tell from the photograph of me, I am a cigar smoker. (For those who can't, I recommend an immediate eye exam or committal to an institution that allows regular finger painting.) It is a habit that I acquired some years ago, and along with my appreciation of a good wine and the occasional distilled spirit, is a form of true enjoyment and stress relief for me. There is nothing more relaxing in the evening than enjoying an adult beverage and a fine cigar. Good company during such times is always welcome (especially if it is an attractive woman), but not required to the occasion.
It appears however, that I will have to be careful in the future of my guilty pleasures, since the smoking laws have changed in Ohio.
Now I live in an apartment, not a single family home (for a number of reasons that we do not need to go into at this juncture), and I do everything that I can to respect the privacy and lifestyles of my neighbors. I try not to play the TV or music too loud or too late, and try not to stink up the building with my efforts at food preparation.
I would like to think however, that if I wanted to indulge myself in one of the perfectly legal fine cigars (no Cubans, thank you) that I keep, that it would not be too much to ask. As the State of Ohio sees it however, I would be wrong.
It appears that my apartment, though my home, is also a public building. It therefore falls under the new smoking ban that Ohio has passed for public buildings.
I can enjoy smoking on my patio (such enjoyment now being predicated by the weather), but I am not allowed to pursue this guilty pleasure while inside my own home. Don't get me wrong, I can understand the desire of the non-smoking public to decide that it can do without my bad habits while sitting in a restaurant after a fine dinner. I have even come to understand that I need to grant equal latitude to my fellow man when enjoying a drink in a pub (though I have to say that this one hurt). I have always tried to be respectful of the health concerns and feelings of others, and have therefore reconciled myself to the fact that my personal form of enjoyment cannot be participated in while in such shared spaces.
I have to say that I am grieved however, to see this particular form of political correctness extend itself beyond the privacy of my front door. I doubt that I pose a serious health risk from second hand smoke to anyone but myself while sealed in my apartment, but this doesn't seem to make a dent in the mind of a state who seems to want to influence or control my behavior.
The passing of such laws in this country should begin to make all of us very afraid. We laugh now, when we hear the stories of states who in the past, passed laws forbidding shopping on certain days, legalized bigotry in schooling or public facility use, or even forbid certain types of sexual practices. We decide that we are now a more enlightened society and tell ourselves that such things couldn't happen today.
Are we only then concerned when this attack on personal freedom occurs in public or in the bedroom, and not in the living room or the kitchen. (Now, now, I know what your thinking and there's no need to discuss sex and location in this posting.) This encroachment on personal freedom is not the first time that our government has entered our homes, seeking to limit our freedom to do something that is not illegal, and unfortunately it won't be the last.
So for those of you who voted for the smoking ban, and who are now reading this and feeling superior because one of the bad guys has been put in his place, beware. I tell you now that your particular foible or peculiarity is probably already on someone else's radar screen and they are licking their chops over the prospect of minding your business.
Far too often in this politically correct world, the humble cigar smoker will find themselves in a world that does not allow them the enjoyment of the awful little habit that the past once allowed. 
