The Anti-Cigarette Law Has Not Failed

The Anti-Cigarette Law has Not Failed By Louis Ward The belief that the anti-cigarette law, passed by the last legislature, has entirely failed to function seems to be general. It is readily admitted that it has accomplished little or nothing as far as the restriction of smoking in public places is con- cerned, nor has it done all that was expected of it in the matter of stopping the sale of cigarettes in the state. But there is one section of law that has been obeyed to the letter, and that is the one forbidding the advertising of cigarettes in any form. Were there no possibility of ever getting the other two sections of the law enforced, this feature alone stamps the act as a worth while measure. For years the great tobacco manufacturers of the country have carried on an educational campaign in behalf of cigarette smoking in this state, spending, according to a prominent local authority — a publisher — no less than $150,000 a year. Now, if any one thinks the prohibition of cigarette advertising in the state an insignificant accomplishment, let him ask himself wheth- er the tobacco people were throwing money away when they spent it for advertising cigarettes in our midst. That is the test. It is quite probable — certain in fact — that the withdrawal of cigarette advertisements in Utah has not made much difference, so far, to the popularity of this form of tobacco. The time is young, but every advertising man — every business man — knows it will have its effect in time. If it were not so it is unlikely that the tobacco companies would have waited for a law to compel them to remove their wonderful ( ? ) slogans from our billboards and newspapers, those that admitted them. They would have withdrawn them before as an expense no longer necessary. I know there are some who will say that cigarettes are still being advertised in Utah through national magazines and news- papers. This is true, but I would reply that we have stopped the greater part of this sort of advertising by the passage of the state law; we ha\e stopped it to the extent of $150,000 worth a year! But even if the advertising stopped by the state law could have no effect on the demand for cigarettes owing to the ad- vertisements appearing in the national publications sold here, we should still be proud of the law, for some must be first in these matters. The small towns scattered throughout the state

266 IMPROVEMENT ERA and nation that were called "Dry," before the Eighteenth Amendment was passed, were in a great many cases often very "Wet," as a result of the action of neighbors. But the leading men and women in these towns were idealists and did not lose heart because of obstacles, but rather looked ahead to a time when prohibition would be general, and that time came. As a notable instance of this we have only to point to Murray, a small municipality near our own capital city. But so much for the advertising side of the law. What about the other two sections of the act? I set out to prove that the law has not failed, and I am going to do so before I am through. I ha^ e already shown how one section of it has been obeyed and what is going to be accomplished, and my reply re- specting the charge that the other two have failed is that they cannot have failed for they have never been tried! In regard to smoking in public places the law was a dead letter from the start. It was even ignored in the City and County Building itself. What its enforcement would have accomplished remains to be seen, but to say the law has failed is to use language very loosely. The same applies to a great extent to that section of the law relating to the sale of cigarettes. I cannot see how any one can claim that any serious effort has been made by the officers of the law to stop its violation. It is time that in the early part of 1922 several cases were tried and most of them failed through the unwillingness of juries to convict, but it should be remem- bered that in nearly every case the complaints were sworn to by a representative of the No-Tobacco League and not by of- ficers of the law. This is an important point to bear in mind, for it gave the public — the people from whom the juries were drawn, the impression that the enforcement of this particular law was only desired by a "few cranks" and that the officers, themselves, treated it with contempt! Again, violation of the law was even allowed in the court room during the trials, for no effort was made to stop smoking although the law expressly states it is forbidden in the City and County Building, particularly in the public sections. Is it reasonable that juries would want to con- vict when these things were taken into consideration? There has been some talk, it seems, of making an effort to repeal the law during the coming session of the legislature. Just why its repeal should be asked for is not quite clear, if we elim- inate those interests which opposed its enactment. One out of three sections of the law has been obeyed, whilst the others are practically in the same position they were before the act became operative in the summer of 1921 — they have not been tried out! Why not give this law a chance as well as other laws? Why ac- cuse anything of failure before it has been given opportunity to

ANTI-CIGARETTE LAW HAS NOT FAILED 267 show what it can do? Why accept the apathy of a few law enforcement officers as evidence that a given measure passed by the legislature is no good? Why not, instead, demand that they do their duty? The people of Utah will obey this law as they obey other laws if the officers show that they as well as the legislature regard it as a law. Whilst smoking is permitted in the city and county buildings, in the very face of officers, can any one ex- pect that a citizen will have a serious regard for the law when he wants to smoke in some other public place? Of course not. To say that the people of Utah will not obey this law is a libel on the citizens of a great law-abiding state. They will obey it, but not before the officers responsible for its enforcement show that they themselves regard it on an equal with other laws of the commonwealth. My space is gone, but I must add a few words regarding the charge that this law is freakish. In the first place, as I have pointed out, it stops the propaganda in behalf of cigarette smoking. Is there anything freakish about that? Is it not right that the young and innocent should have temptation taken from them? In the second place, it forbids the sale of cigarettes, which is the only possible way the children can be kept from smoking. Is there anything freakish about that? If so, how would our opponents stop the practice? Would they abolish tobacco altogether? Perhaps they would stop the practice of cigarette smoking only, but we have not even tried to do that. We have only tried to make it impossible, or exceedingly difficult, for children to purchase cigarettes. If all the tobacco retailers, of a great proportion of them, had been honest, even this regula- tion would not have been necessary. The third section of the act forbids smoking in public eating places, elevators, depots, and a few other enclosed places. Is there anything freakish about this provision? Has a smoker a right to make the life of another person uncomfortable, if not injure his health? Jus- lice and reason answer, Certainly not ! Therefore, the act, first, prohibits the advertising of cigarettes, secondly, forbids their sale, and lastly, says smoking must not be indulged in certain public places where it is likely to be annoying or injurious to the public. Many smokers seem to think the law was designed to benefit them, and they, therefore, ridicule it and declare they are alright as they are. They are mistaken; it was designed for the protection of the rising generation and the non-smoker.