Lit cigarettes remain common even in places where
they're forbidden.
There's no ban or edict that any government can stuff down its subjects' throats that some people will not resent and defy. Ample proof of that comes from Illinois, where The Telegraph reports, "[l]ike speakeasies during Prohibition, the area now has 'smokeasies.' Almost every town has a bar or two where people know they can go to smoke without being told to extinguish it." Welcome to the resistance, folks. Similar reports are trickling in from across the United States.
Where can you find smokeasies? Over the past few years, they've been spotted in Colorado Springs, Honolulu, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle ...
In Cleveland, where smoking and stripping were restricted at the same time, the bans resulted in two-fer "smokehouses" where sex, booze and tobacco mingle in a completely illegal environment.
Sounds like fun, to be honest.
Elsewhere, licensed, above-ground establishments simply thumb their noses at the law, relying on loyal clientele to appreciate the scofflawry and keep their mouths shut. Logically enough, this suggests that low-profile, neighborhood establishments have a better chance at surviving as speakeasies than glitzy joints full of ever-changing faces.
According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
The smoke-easies tend to be in neighborhood dives; the Ballard bartender noted that it's too risky to allow smoking in trendy bars like the ones in Belltown. "If you're in the Frontier Room or the Rendezvous," he said, "you can't tell who's going to mind the smoking or not because there's a different crowd there every night."
In a neighborhood dive, even a militant anti-smoker will keep his mouth shut if wants to avoid pariah status.
None of this should be a surprise to anybody. The word "smokeasy" or "smoke-easy" is, after all, a play on "speakeasy," the name for establishments that sold illicit booze to willing customers during the long, dark years of Prohibition. Politicians may please themselves or the mob with restrictive laws, but very often such laws are unenforceable, because people subject to those laws aren't willing to comply, no matter the penalty.
No matter the penalty?
That's right. In 1633, Sultan Murad IV of the Ottoman Empire imposed the death penalty for smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol or coffee. Penalties were enthusiastically enforced. Even so, his subjects were ... unimpressed. The bans were repealed by his successor.
As Cleveland police Detective Tom Shoulders put it, "You put too many restrictions on people, they're going to find someplace else to go for their entertainment."
Wisdom from the mouths of enforcers.
Prohibitions don't work because no penalty is harsh enough to make unwilling people obey. Nicotine Nazis follow in the footsteps of drug warriors who walk the same path picked by Prohibitionists. All have tried to bend people to their will, and all have failed.
They do damage, though. Bans and restrictions inflict fines and prison time on people (and sometimes death). Nanny-staters often escalate their efforts rather than surrender to reality. By raising the stakes, enforcers empower criminals, who are best suited to profit from governments' authoritarian missteps and to undermine law-enforcement efforts.
But even flawed, defiant liberty is better than submission to the control freaks who would tell us how to live our lives. Light 'em if you got 'em and puff out a toast to the smokeasies of Illinois -- and elsewhere.
You might also enjoy these:
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Contact J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
Comments
If second-hand smoke weren't such a health hazard, I might be inclined to agree with a more libertarian stance, as in the case of alcohol. Non-smoking sections don't cut it though.
"If second-hand smoke weren't such a health hazard, I might be inclined to agree with a more libertarian stance, as in the case of alcohol."
Actually if you were more inclined to freedom, you would be more apt to agree with a libertarian. Disguising your statism and desire to control others through health policy does not deceive true libertarians.
Additionally, the data on "2nd hand smoke" is cooked. Now they are going even further and stating that "3rd hand smoke" (that which clings to hair, fabric and walls) is even more toxic. The smoking bans and the lying nono-science behind them are truly a war on freedom, just like Prohibition 2.0 (the Wo(s)D) and the "war on terror". We had a "smokeasy" here in my town, somebody narced and it was shut down and the owner fined a huge amount (more revenue for the local limb of Leviathan).
As a 1920s and 1930s buff and as a smoker I love the term "smokeasy". Thank you for posting this. I'm sick to death of the tyranny of the majority. It's not bad enough that they have banned smoking from bars and other public place but now that our state government needs money the first place they look is to tax cigarettes.
It's more fun going to a bar that ignores the ban. Al Capone is laughing in his grave.
After seeing the movie "Valkyrie" it's easy to see why Germany repealed their ban, a law that depends on friends and neighbors snitching on each other. The ban worked against their efforts ot erase the memories of Hitler. Destroying his bunker was being overridden by the ban.
Babies in 2025 will be at serious risk from fourteenth-hand smoke from the five remaining smokers (who will be required to register, along with the sex offenders, when moving into a neighborhood).
Let that be a lesson to all of us; while we tried to decide whether the overwhelming evidence from thousands of top scientists concerning global warming was truly convincing, a few poorly-conducted studies with ambiguous results convinced everyone that second-hand smoke was well worth curtailing individual freedom of choice. If only climate change professionals had shown a direct risk to little babies from one specific habit that many people were predisposed to dislike!
Remember thirty years ago, when half of the people smoked, or fifty years ago, when nearly everyone did? It's amazing the human race is still around. Imagine what might have happened without all the studies, research, legislation, and propaganda campaigns! There might have been a significant increase in heart disease, asthma and other respiratory diseases, as well as lung and throat cancer since the middle of last century.
Oh, wait, there was? Well, it must have been that dratted third-hand smoke. And if necessary, fourth and fifth-hand smoke...whatever it takes to ensure that children aren't ever exposed to the possible consequences of individual freedom.
The nice thing about freedom, "L.E." is that no one will force you to go to a smokeasy -- so you can have your smoke-free venues.
I'm a pipe smoker -- don't smoke when visiting non-smokers, nor tolerate any such visitors who complain about my habit in MY house. Like they say, ya got to understand the house rules.
Funny thing, tho' ... of many visitors who are vocal against cigarette smoking, the majority will ask me to light up my pipe, as they enjoy the fragrant aroma. Go figure.
The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm
Great article. Loved it!
Wish I could find smokeasies in Phoenix.
Mopsley
The next logical step is for tobacco to be made an illegal drug, and don't think it isn't coming. At which point, respect for the law will, and should, go even lower than it is now.
The whole point of being an adult is to get to make your own risk/reward decisions. Any country where this is not entirely allowed is not free.
Loved the article, very well researched and written.
And I couldn't agree more with the general outlook; yes, being addicted to nicotine via cigarette smoking may in fact be a form of slavery in some way, but for politicians, biased special-interest groups, and the authorities to ban this behavior on private property is a far more egregious imposition on civil liberties, no matter how unpopular smoking may be.
And the taxes on cigarettes, how's that for hypocrisy in government? If heaters are so evil, why not criminalize their manufacture, possession, sale, and use like heroin and meth? Because of the revenue.
Of course, there are legitimate ways to make your own smokes for as little as >$1/pack; perhaps I will submit an article to the Examiner so that others may learn what I have about how to continue enjoying the habit, but pay as though it's 1977. And for a fresher, more satisfying smoke.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!