Good idea, bad idea

A lady came into the store I work at today wanting to put up a flyer in our window. As we're located downtown, this is a common occurrence. What wasn't common was the flyer she wanted to place.

She went on to explain to me an idea she had. She proposed tattooing the hands of people who abuse alcohol. The tattoo would be placed in a conspicuous location on the top of the hand between the thumb and forefinger. She explained to me how many people died due to drunk driving, how they amounted to more people per year than have died in the war in Iraq. Not to mention, she went on, the children and wives who are abused and the tax-money spent on jailing alcohol-related convicts. And yes, she just said "wives," as if she didn't realize women could be alcoholics as well as men (although there do tend to be more male alcoholics, I've found that some of this is due to a social double-standard, and that abusing alcohol is somehow more socially acceptable for men).

Now, I understand this theory. The tattoos would be given to repeat abusers, who would in turn be treated as though they were underage. There just seems to be, at lease to myself, several holes in this plan. Doesn't it seem a little too "prison-camp?" People wouldn't accept it on that basis alone. Not to mention the fact that some people simply can't be tattooed due to blood-clot issues, etc. This would be the modern equivalent of the Scarlett Letter. And one that can easily covered up with gloves or makeup. It could even be construed as cruel and unusual. I mean, a lot of people are multiple offenders when it comes to murder, rape, armed robbery and the like, but no one's proposing we brand them. Bottom line, there are much better ways to control repeat offenders of alcohol-related abuse. Laws in this regard are already being created and amended, including things like more stringent probationary periods of blood and urine testing, and things like breathalyzers being installed in cars that require clean breath before allowing the car to start.

My theory is that this lady has probably lost a loved one to a drunk driver, or something similar. And while I can sympathize, being a recovering alcoholic myself and knowing what we're capable of, I just don't think this can work. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that laws protecting people against repeat abusers need to be very strict, but some things can go overboard. I'd like to know what other people think, so please post a comment if you have an opinion.

Quote of the Day

I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
-T.S. Eliot

Perhaps the fear of death is part of the reason for this countries outlook on smokers. We recognize our own mortallity in the fatality of others. What do you think?

Taxation, Taxation

I'm getting tired of all this new tobacco legislation. Now, maybe I'm biased because I'm a smoker myself, but I feel like we're becoming second-class citizens. Yes, the smoking ban fad has finally crept it's way into good old Appleton, Wisconsin. Can't smoke in bars or restaurants. The only public places you can smoke are tobacco outlets. I happen to be employed in one, but we are mainly a bookstore and company policy doesn't allow smoking in-store. At any rate, the ban is hurting downtown businesses. Bar-hoppers are going out-of-town to frequent smoker-friendly establishments.

Here's one bit of hope: Governer Jim Doyle is proposing a statewide smoking ban. While I still think this is overzealous and an infringement on our rights to use a legal product, it will standardize things and keep people from leaving town to hit the bars.

Now, allow me to rant a bit. Now, I understand that tobacco use is one of the leading "causes of preventable death" in the US. While this study may be flawed (compare to Overall causes of death) seen as how cancer (all forms of cancer) is second from the top, and respiratory illness (again, all forms, tobacco related or not) is a fractional 4th place. How the total number of "tobacco" deaths was figured in 2000 remains a mystery. At any rate, tobacco is a LEGAL product, and no matter which way you slice it, it remains a personal choice whether or not to smoke. If you know the dangers, (and how could you not) and still choose to smoke, that is your right. Or rather, was your right, now that many of us can't smoke in places where smoking was formerly part of the territory.

Most smokers, at least of the ones I know, are considerate and polite. We don't go around blowing smoke into people's faces. In fact, if I'm smoking on the street (which is the only option in Appleton) and someone walks by, I stand away and don't even hit my cigarette around them. If someone is bothered by smoke and I'm inside somewhere where I can smoke, I go outside anyway. I can totally understand smoking prevention campaigns and the like, but this legislation banning smoking is a victimization of a large number of the population, which is around 23%. What comes next? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America, but we wouldn't try and stop people from eating fast food in public, would we? The concept is ridiculous.

Okay, enough raving for today. Late.