March 31, 2004

MILWAUKEE (APUPI) Fresh from their victories over smoking in California, New York City, and Ireland, activists in the war for clean public air have opened up the next front, demanding that flatulence be outlawed in restaurants and bars.

"The research results are still coming in, but it's common sense that second-hand methane is a clear public health hazard," said Chastity Titeass, a spokeswoman for the most prominent anti-flatulence group.

"Odorless my ass," chimed in one of the other members of the group, holding her nose, under her breath.

"Despite the unscientific recommendations of the bean and broccoli lobby, it clearly wasn't sufficient to simply set up farting and no-farting sections in the restaurants. The oppressed waitpersons were almost unable to breath when they had to attend to the customers in the designated flatulence zones."

In response to this public pressure, the city council passed a new law last week, totally banning flatulence in all Milwaukee public eating and drinking establishments, including the restrooms.

The issue wasn't confined merely to air quality.

Other concerns were raised to the forefront a couple months ago, in the disastrous explosion at the Guaymas Mexican seafood restaurant on the west side of town, which injured dozens of people. A birthday party had been in progress for hours, with ample helpings of frijoles and Monterey Jack, in the hermetically sealed flatulence area.

When the waitress brought in an octogenarian birthday cake, with the requisite number of candles, it resulted in a sudden explosion. It blew out the walls, and expelled many of the diners out into the alley. Repairs are estimated to be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

As a result, the city council decided that a complete ban of enclosed-area emissions was the only solution that would ultimately satisfy public safety concerns.

In a town renowned for its beer and cheese, the new restrictions have hit the bars particularly hard.

"I don't care what those environmentalist wackos say," said Joe Peeusky, a local tavern owner for three decades. His business is down by two thirds since the new law has been passed.

"My customers come here to relax. They want to have a brewski, eat some pretzels, let it hang out, relax. Know what I mean? They're not going to want to go outside when...things happen."

A patron agrees.

"I know it's a disgusting habit, but what are you gonna do? I just can't go that long without it."

"I've been passing gas as long as I can remember. We all did it, ever since we were young. There was a lot of peer pressure when I was a kid--we used to have contests, for decibels and stench, and sometimes, flame length and duration. You get together after school, and the word is, you know, 'light 'em up.' Now I'm really hooked."

He continued, "I tried quitting once. I got really agitated. I was really hard to live with."

"I also gained a lot of weight. Yeah, I know, you can't see it on the scales, but I swelled up like the Goodyear blimp on steroids. I just couldn't kick the habit."

He's not alone.

It's a tragically pitiful and, at the same time, repugnant sight to see groups of customers huddled outside the doors of the city's bars and restaurants, indulging in their repellent and seemingly unnatural urges. The sounds of their gaseous expellations resonate across the ancient brick fronts of the buildings, and the pungent, almost suffocating aroma slowly drifts down the windless street, a testament to a vile and uncontrollable addiction.

"They don't have to go through this," says Ron Blowhardt, the local head of Flatulaholics Anonymous. "A combination of Beano and our twelve-step program can allow them to eat a full meal in a restaurant, without the need to duck outside. The important thing is to acknowledge that you have no power, to submit yourself to a higher authority, which is to say, eensy weensy bacteria in your guts, so small you can barely see them with a microscope."

In the meantime, Ms. Titeass is excited about the next battles in this new front in the war for public air quality.

"We're going after the airlines," she said. "People have to sit in a small confined volume for hours with this. They found out that no smoking sections didn't work there, and no farting sections won't either. In fact, I'll bet that once they see the reduction in maintenance costs on their air filters, they'll adopt it even without legislation. Sure, people might have to step outside occasionally at thirty-five thousand feet, but that's their choice. No one's holding a gun to their head to make them...do this."

Her ultimate goal?

"I think that it's outrageous that NASA thinks that astronauts on their way to Mars for many months should have to put up with such disgusting habits. We'll make sure that they won't go until they've solved the problem. Anyway, from what I hear, there's already enough methane up there."

(Copyright 2004, by Rand Simberg)

Rand, I'm not quite sure here - is this an "I should be able to smoke in everybody's face" rant, or are you showing what things would be like if stinkers acted like smokers? If the latter, good point! Thankfully, most stinkers have the grace not to foul the air everywhere they go.

Incidentally, my father suffered from severe emphysemia before he died. I had repeated bouts of bronchitis and other lung diseases ... which dropped away dramatically when I stopped breathing second-hand smoke. I also get nose bleeds and a severe alergic reaction to smoke these days, so I have absolutely no doubt that seconnd-hand smoke has detrimental health affects. Still, if somebody wants to commit slow suicide or foul their own air, I'll let them. Just as long as they don't foul MY air . . .

Very funny, Rand!

VR, I think you rather miss the point. The objection to smoking bans in bars and restaurants is not that smoking is not a nuisance or possibly unhealthy. The jury is out on the latter point but smoking is undeniably unpleasant for many folk, including myself. The point, though, is that decisions on whether bans should be imposed should, as far as possible, rest with the owners of the property, and not the State.

In a free market, smokers and non-smokers can patronise public spaces to suit their tastes. This already happens near my home in London where a number of pubs and restaurants have partial bans, and folk seem to get along fine with it.

Heh. You must have been inspired (pun intended) by your own posting immediately below...

Johnathan:

Cigarette smoke is one of the most obvious killers around. In a world where we ban useful substances on the basis of extrapolation of extreme doses in animals, we have overwhelming evidence of the danger of cigarette smoke on humans. Yet, a substance with no useful purpose is allowed to pollute the air non-smokers have to breathe. Smoking is technically a “Third Party Problem” – smoke doesn’t confine itself to one person, it goes where it wants. Saying it shouldn’t be regulated is like saying that coal power plants shouldn’t be required to have pollution control if their customers agree.

I don’t know about London, but in California, many smokers had an attitude that they should be able to smoke anywhere, anytime. In practice, it wasn’t possible to work or go much of anywhere without living with smoke. I remember having to work in a room with chain-smokers, until we moved to a non-smoking building, at another location going to the building’s cafeteria filled with gray-brown smoke – after a five minute stay the stink would be in my clothes until they were washed.

If the average smoker had had a better attitude, the reaction might not have been so strong. The laws were the response to that attitude. The arrogance didn’t help their position at all.

VR, my apologies if I failed to make my point strongly enough: I hate cigarette smoke and dislike the fact that every time I go to some places -- from my own choice, BTW -- I have to wash my hair and take my clothes to the dry cleaner. Smoking sucks, and you are in good company in agreeing with me on that score.

My problem with so much of the anti-smoking movement, if one can call it that, though, is the edge of hysteria and intolerance that surrounds the current debate. There is practically no human activity of any consequence that does not lead to "third party" effects. There is no perfect way to handle that fact. I believe, however, that letting owners of different spaces like bars and so on regulate their own premises as they see fit is a way of allowing people and their different tastes and habits to rub along with the least possible friction.

I like to think that the tobacco-growing Founding Fathers of the USA would have agreed.

While there often are some "third party issues" this is an extreme, obvious case. Here, there used to be little true choice to avoid smoke unless you lived as a hermit. There's also the public health issue. I find amazing that, despite the far stronger evidence for smoking than for many other things we consider dangerous, many don't think it should be regulated.

I think the key problem here was the "I have the RIGHT to smoke anywhere" attitude while ignoring that others have the right not to. I don't care for "sin taxes" and perhaps regulations have gone further than needed, but the strong confrontational attitude left little room for compromise.