Mussels in a cream sauce, the catch of the day and a few pints of Guinness to wash it all down.

I was sitting in an Irish pub with my wife and my 10-year-old son — something I could never do here in the US, and enjoying their company as well as the pub atmosphere. We couldn’t do it here for health reasons and we could only do it in Ireland because of a smoking ban that country enacted in 2004. Bars here are smoky and cigarette smoking is common.

My son has asthma, my wife has allergies and my doctor told me I shouldn’t be smoking; forcing me to give up a short-lived once a week cigar habit of a few years ago. At the time it seemed luxurious — hanging out with friends with a Dominican rolled Churchill and a dram of single malt scotch to wash it down. The problem was the cough that developed and when at just 35 I was told there was a spot on my lung that had to come out or I could die, it was more than enough to give up my weekly habit. Somehow that cigar which contributed to that spot was a bit less luxurious as I laid in a hospital with a chest tube sticking out of me and feeling like someone had just stabbed me with a knife — something the surgeon had done just hours earlier.

So being able to go out with the family and not worry about other peoples smoke was something that was a real treat. It would be even nicer if we didn’t have to travel 3500 miles to do it.

Milwaukee’s smoking ban proposal would make it possible to do that here. I could take the family out for dinner at a Milwaukee Bar and Grill without concern for our health. I wouldn’t have to worry if my son has his inhaler with him or whether the smell of smoke would taint our meal.

Smoking advocates are presenting their opposition as a matter of personal freedom as though by not letting them distribute their second hand smoke into the lungs of nearby patrons, City leaders would be snuffing out their rights. It’s the same argument that played out in Ireland when their ban was proposed and it’s the same argument that played out in England recently. Even now, the Brits ready themselves for a country wide smoking ban in the summer of 2007. But in Ireland it hasn’t had the negative impact smoking advocates claimed it would and during our family trip this past December, I was able to enjoy a few pints precisely because the pubs aren’t smoky. Irish authorities are serious about their smoking ban and pub owners who allow people to smoke can lose their license.

The ban has created a bit of a smokers social club outside of several pubs with smokers taking a break from their pints and popping outside to have a smoke. Outside, their smoke quickly dissipates and people who would otherwise avoid the pubs are able to belly up to the bar for a few pints the proprietor wouldn’t have otherwise sold.

France has also introduced a smoking ban but has sadly pursued a policy of appeasement. Authorities do not enforce their ban so the smoking ban in bars and restaurants is ignored to the detriment of non-smokers. I won’t be visiting Paris anytime soon.

Smokers often argue that bars already have smoke eaters, filters and ventilation so their bad habit doesn’t interfere with the rights of others. If that was true, non-smokers wouldn’t smell like a pack of cigarettes after leaving a bar and they wouldn’t wake up with sore throats. As it stands, I know of only one place that has a fan so powerful that it sucks out most of the smoke. I can only imagine how high their energy bill is.

In Ireland the ban has won acclaim from the public. Although the Republic of Ireland introduced the law in 2004, Northern Ireland is still a smokers haven. However, the popularity of the ban in the south is catching on and Northern Irelands smoking ban starts in 2007.

Milwaukee’s Common Council will vote on the ban on March 21st but in an editorial, Alderman Bob Donovan, a smoker, calls the smoking ban proposal the brainchild of “special interest groups”. He continues by listing “the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the Black Health Coalition” as these special interests. But Donovan misses the point — these groups are in existence to combat health problems and to advocate for the betterment of public health. The American Cancer Society is not some sort of nefarious or covert organization scheming and plotting to overthrow the government. Their mission statement says they are “dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service”.

While I can’t applaud Donovan’s position on this specific issue, those advocating the ban on the Council deserve praise. This pro-family, pro-health ordinance would be a great enhancement to the quality of life for many in our community.