In my previous effort, I made comparisons between smokers and the LGBTQ+ community to make the case for us to have our own establishments in which to socialize. Now I’m going to make a comparison with what is commonly termed “the gun culture.”

As almost everyone is aware, gun violence is at an all-time high in the United States.  There are mass shooting events on the average of one per day and it’s no longer news that pre-empts everything else that someone has opened fire in a school, house of worship, movie theater, shopping mall, etc., for no discernable reason. No one is shocked anymore. There is, of course, much discussion and heated debate about what is to be done. Many advocate more restrictions on firearms, yet others recommend that more people be armed to protect against such occurrences. There are reports that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, which adds another wrinkle to the issue. 

The “Right to Bear Arms” is enshrined in the US Constitution, though this is also highly contentious. More to the point, there is much money and political clout behind gun ownership, represented most visibly by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

One of the main issues is the availability of military-style ¨assault weapons.” These are capable of firing massive rounds in a very short time and are considered responsible for the large numbers of casualties in mass shootings. Even many members of the “gun culture” are of the opinion that these weapons serve no legitimate purpose in civilian life.

Yet there is staunch opposition to any sort of law restricting assault weapons. Part of it stems from the belief that citizens need military-type weapons to defend themselves from a tyrannical government that might arise (or has already arisen).  But another part may have something to do with what we smokers have experienced over the years.

It used to be that one could smoke virtually anywhere. Then it was proposed that there be non-smoking areas. This was reasonable; after all, some people don’t like to be around tobacco smoke. Most smokers acquiesced. After all, there were still plenty of smoking areas (INDOOR smoking areas) and lots of places, like bars, that were all smoking.

This peaceful coexistence went on for a while and I guess some of the more fanatical anti-smokers were not happy that smokers were still able to be comfortable. So they agitated for more restrictions. Indoor smoking areas became smaller, rarer and not well maintained and finally disappeared almost completely in most workplaces. The next step was to push for a ban in ALL indoor spaces, including bars. There are even those calling for apartment buildings to forbid smoking based on the idea that smoke seeps through walls and kills anyone on the other side. And many such (supposedly) smoke-free buildings do exist. 

Next, they went after smoking OUTside, a thing previously unheard of. After all, it was OUTSIDE; the smoke couldn´t build up, the wind would carry it off, etc. But under the new panic, non-smokers were encouraged to believe that merely smelling smoke for three seconds as one walked out a door was somehow intensely hazardous and soon there were signs on entrances saying smoking was forbidden less than 25 feet away.

I work at two institutions of higher learning. At one, I´m blessed to be able, should I desire a cigarette, to go halfway across campus and sit inside what is actually a bus shelter. There were three such structures, currently down to two due to construction. I can also smoke at the bus stop and I’m sure there are other clandestine places to smoke, not to mention the inherent advantage of vaping, the ability to sneak an odorless, quickly dissipating hit.

My other place, and here I shall name it, Stony Brook University, is full of signs and banners proclaiming that ¨SBU is proud to be tobacco-free.¨ No one is supposed to consume tobacco in any form—smoked, vaped or even chewed—anywhere on the 1,040-acre campus, no matter how far away from everyone. Before the ban, there was an ¨astroturf¨ student group who went around picking up ¨tobacco litter¨ (and ignoring other kinds of litter) to lobby for a total ban. They also went around to off-campus landlords urging them not to rent to smokers. There´s a special place in hell for such people…

But back to my original point: smokers acquiesced to reasonable restrictions, thinking they would go no further. But the long-term goal of anti-smoking is to eradicate the habit entirely and they weren’t going to be satisfied with just non-smoking areas, or any other form of toleration. And so they’ve persisted, incrementally inching toward a total ban and maybe even criminalization.

The gun folks (many of whom are also smokers) see this and realize that the slippery slope is a real thing. They conclude that if they agree to a ban on assault weapons and increased background checks for gun buyers, which would be sensible, anti-gun zealots will insist that these don’t go far enough and will seek the eradication of ALL gun ownership.  Nor do the gun folks take seriously reassurances that activists seek only to take the most dangerous weapons out of circulation.  Smokers heard similar reassurances that restrictions would not become draconian, reassurances that have proven false over time.