Feeling a little sensitive, are we?
Well, we're not talking about shooting smokers, of course. In this country, unlike others we can name, we (generally) don't shoot murderers, rapists, kidnappers, armed robbers, child abusers, drunk drivers, drug dealers, thieves, or corrupt politicians. We also don't shoot -- although Lord knows that, sometimes, we'd sure like to -- tax collectors, homeowners who water their lawns on the wrong day of the week, and not even people who talk on cell phones in movie theaters.
However, the people who enforce laws against most of the above carry out their enforcement responsibilities while they’re armed. They’re armed to protect themselves, and the public, against murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child abusers, drunk drivers, cell-phone users, and anyone who might wish them and the rest of us harm. They're also armed as a symbol of the full authority and power of the state.
Beat cops with handguns. Cruiser cops with shotguns. SWAT teams with submachine pistols. Delta operatives with sniper rifles. Army battalions with assault weapons. The Strategic Air Command with nuclear warheads. Whatever the situation calls for, the guys with the guns show up to take control -- or try to; sometimes, as we've often seen, they make matters worse. Either way, that’s how laws are enforced in most jurisdictions in this country and world. Government, after all, is simply the sanctioned use of coercion and violence.
Now, laws that don't have the guys with the guns to enforce them aren't really laws at all, are they? If someone breaks a law like that, how is that person to be brought to justice and to be made to pay his or her debt to society?
Let's take, oh, we don't know, how about a law that prohibits smoking in bars that serve food, as an example. Is some fellow bar patron going to take matters into his own hands and make a citizen’s arrest? How about the bartender? Is he going to vault over the counter, wrestle the smoker to the floor, and hogtie him? Which brings us to the unarmed Health Department inspector. What's he or she going to do when confronted with some six-foot-six bear in a biker bar who takes exception to being told to stub out his butt? Ask him to follow her downtown on his Harley and book him?
None of the above, obviously. The only thing they could all do is to call the guys with the guns.
However, in this case, the guys with the guns have a lot more important things to do than to issue citations to people who smoke in bars where it's disallowed. It's similar to the citations that they don’t issue for jaywalking, or spitting on the sidewalk, or ripping tags off of mattresses.
So who's to enforce this non-smoking law? The owners and employees of these bars can only shrug and say, "Who me?" Citizens can complain to the Health Department, but the only thing the Health Department can do, so far, is to call the police. And the police have already made it clear that they don't respond to smoking calls.
So here we have a law that isn't -- and probably, in the foreseeable future, can't be -- enforced, other than voluntarily, which, so far, isn't working too well. That, in so many words, was our point when we wrote that Health Department inspectors don't carry guns. What good is such a law? It's no good at all. It's worse, in our opinion, than no law at all. It only creates confusion, causes disrespect for (good) laws, and pisses off everyone, which could conceivably make it dangerous.
