There was an interesting article in the NY Times today about the ongoing battle against smoking in America. Belmont, California, a town south of San Francisco, recently put a new law into effect that bans “smoking anywhere in the city of about 25,000 except in detached homes and yards, streets and some sidewalks, and designated smoking areas outside.” So, if you live in a condo or an apartment building you are out of luck. You can’t smoke in your own home.
Well Edith Frederickson, a two pack-a-day smoker for the last 50 years, was less than pleased with such a law. “‘I’m absolutely outraged,’ said Ms. Frederickson, 72, pulling on a Winston as she sat on a concrete slab outside her single-room apartment. ‘They’re telling you how to live and what to do, and they’re doing it right here in America.’“
So what are the effects of the law? Mrs. Frederickson is one of those that “still smoke secretly” in their apartments. She said “she is looking to move out of Belmont if she can find something cheap enough. Until then, however, she seems defiant, despite feeling like a criminal in Belmont.
“‘And I’m going to keep being a criminal, let me tell you that,’ she said.”
Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter
COMMENTS
31 responses to “The Ongoing Battle Against Smoking”
Leave a Reply
Ah, the Law…will it ever stop giving us fodder to write?!!? This is a great post and simply demonstrates the real-life effects of the law. I love your stuff Sean!
Thanks Lauren:)
Wow. Isn’t it sort of absurd? Like, we (as in people in general) think that imposing a blanket law will just make everyone conform to our desires/standards.
Guaranteed that no one who voted on that bill was a smoker – or at least, currently. Ha.
hi sean!
thanks for the post.
i was wondering what you think about the relationship between the civil use of the law (or the purpose of God’s law to restrain evil) and laws enacted by government/society to protect its people.
Marc,
I have thought about the same thing. Now, the whole idea of the use of law really bothers me. I am not sure if we ever use the law, especially to restrain evil, rather if anything it uses us, even in the civil use, to point out how I am actually very wicked.
For example anytime I see a speed limit sign, I instinctivly set the cruise control at least 5 mph faster. Did you ever see the show intervention? Definately a show all about civil use: stop doing drugs or you will die. However, out of the 15 shows I saw, only one was still sober.
No Smoking, on one level is good, (I don’t really believe that I love smoking) but nothing makes me want to smoke more than being told I can’t smoke.
Whatever “form” or “use” the law takes, because of Original Sin there is something within us that longs to rebel against it and sin
(1 Cor. 15:56-57).
Here in the People's Republic of Columbia, they have really cracked down on public smoking. South Carolina! The land of less government and not more!
It reminds me of my father's trip to Northern California to visit my sister. She works at a vegan B&B and the owner walks up to my dad (Libertarian and Southern as bullet holes through a stop sign)and says the following: "I'm glad Catherine is teaching you how to eat ethically". This is after he has gone out of his way to adopt the customs and affirm my sister and her friends.
Dad said he wanted to give the guy a flying face slam right in the middle of some hippie vegan pie. Of course, out of love for my sister, he swallowed his pride and continued grazing on his fescue and free-range carrots.
All of that to say is that all these smoking laws make me want to smoke twelve cigarettes at a time and fumigate city hall with cigarette smoke.
I know this is a bit against the Mockingbird grain, but I’ll try standing up for the law in question.
It’s probably a bit over the top as written (banning smoking in apartments and condos); though it’s a mistake for us at MB to construe that as an attempt to regulate private behavior. The reason they chose to include condos and apartments is probably because they often have linked air systems, and people who smoke in one apartment are probably disturbing the air in others. That is true in my complex certainly.
But as I say, I’d be fine with relaxing it so that it didn’t try to police apartments and condos.
One of the reasons to craft a law like this is because it is simply difficult for businesses, especially bars, to provide smoke free environments for patrons without there being an ordinance. If there’s no law, then an owner can’t make his bar smoke free without risking a big loss of revenue.
It’s easy to get caught up in perceiving such laws as attempts to punish perceived wickedness, when their only function is to provide people with the option of clean air. (If that wasn’t the sole function of this law, then it would also make smoking illegal in private homes.)
That said, because self-righteousness is the human condition, we’ll certainly see it manifested in some nonsmokers, where they enjoy making smokers feel like awful wicked people contrasted with their saintliness. But that’ll be the case whether we have a law or not.
Mockingbird law-bashing notwithstanding (grin) the Law has a real and valuable function in its left hand use — and its theological use of driving us to the Cross. Where MB has a valuable contribution to make is in its criticism of the so-called THIRD use, which is what most everyone believes in, conservative and liberal.
hi jacob-
thanks for the response.
yes, there is indeed a difference between God’s civil use and our civil use, but i’m still trying to figure out their relationship.
does our inherent rebellious nature mean that we shouldn’t enact any laws to maintain a civil society? what do we “do” with these laws as gospel loving christians? from a law/gospel perspective, what do we make of the apostle paul’s words about submission and governing authorities in Romans 13?
Oh, not at all Marc. I think civil law is important and it indeed has a place and a role in the life of a Christian. We would kill each other without some sort of civil law and I think as a Christian submission to authorities (Rom 13) is our vocation. I am just saying that even that (civil law) has the power to stir up the sin within me.
Just one comment. In terms of the law (civil or otherwise) being able to modify behavior – it can’t and doesn’t.
There are plenty of laws in place whose goals are to keep us safe, but we are not kept safe. People still murder, rape and steal. The law has failed in its attempts to regulate behavior. Just look at the woman in the story. Will she stop smoking in her apartment because there has been a law enacted to keep her from doing so? No! She said so herself.
So, the only power that the law has is it’s punitive power – being able to punish the lawbreaker (and perhaps keep him from breaking the law again through means of incarceration or execution).
In any event, the law has no power to “change”.
Hey Burton. To be honest, I am bewildered that you could say that. Of course laws are able to modify behavior. Try living in a truly lawless place, and there have been a number in the news over the last 15 years, and you’ll develop very fast a healthy respect for the ability of the law to modfy the behavior of rapists, murderers, and thieves.
Just because laws do not succeed in modifying behavior 100% of the time (some murders still happen, etc.) doesn’t mean it doesn’t mean it isn’t effective most of the time. That’s like saying that, because smoking doesn’t produce lung cancer in every smoker, therefore smoking tobacco isn’t carcinogenic.
The Pauline/Lutheran critique of the law, and especially Christ’s discussion of the law in the Sermon on the Mount, never claims that the law is incapable of modifying behavior, The critique claims that the Law does not modify the HEART, which is of course true. Thus you can have people obeying a law externally, but in their heart they are filled with resentment, or pride, or any number of other kinds of sin, and thus the (correct) conclusion that the Law is incapable of getting people not to sin. Even if they fulfill some aspect of it externally, their inner hearts will be so much the worse; and since God’s law (as opposed to man’s) cares for our inner thoughts as well, the Law can never engender that which it requires.
I think maybe the misunderstanding is that you think the nonsmoking law which Sean refers to was intended to “change” smokers into nonsmokers, to get them to stop being “bad.” You write:
“Just look at the woman in the story. Will she stop smoking in her apartment because there has been a law enacted to keep her from doing so? No! She said so herself. “
But actually, that’s not the intent of the law. Those of us who support bans on smoking like this don’t care about the woman, or her health, or her goodness or badness. We just want to be able to eat lunch or ride the bus or whatever with a very low probability that someone will be filling the air with cigarette smoke. And in this nonsmoking laws like these are quite effective. If you did a random survey of a city’s public spaces a year before and a year after such a law gets enacted, the difference is stunning.
Another great conversation; I love you guys!
John, I think that your insights are helpful here, and I think that Sean’s wonderful post is another exercise in “hyperbolic phenomenological apologetics”–meaning that the anagogical interpretation may break down, but not on the first glance!
Mark, I’ve been thinking a lot about that question too, particularly in light of how many political discussions I’ve (mercifully) been able to escape from over the past few months. . .and here are some thoughts.
I think that part of the interesting thing about “civil laws” is that we assume that they have to have a theological foundation, and that we assume specific knowledge of the Law available to the Judeo/Christian tradition. I don’t think we have any clearer picture than the Greeks/Romans did–in a civil/natural sense–of the content of the Law, but we certainly have an insight into its existential power, ultimate nature and temporal quality in light of Christ.
Society can rightly decide, quite apart from any Christian influence,that smoking is unhealthy, driving too fast is bad, fraud should be punished. . etc, and the extent to which peoples of all faiths can affirm these “self-evident truths” then we should stand with them. Particularly when there is some commitment to the sanctity of life in general and human life in particular.
That doesn’t mean that we have to like it, or that we don’t resent the impingement of the Law, or that the experience of having our actions brought into question doesn’t lead to anxiety and fear–but all of these reactions point to a deeper problem addressed by the Gospel.
So what is the “Christian Role” in politics–I think its to continue to hold sharply to the distinction between Law and Gospel and expose the idolatry that comes from either baptizing politics or politicizing the Gospel. This is not to say that they are independent of one another, but they speak to different realities–one penultimate–in such a way that the Christian can be ultimately free to do the political/social etc work set before her now.
The discussion about “uses of the Law,”–IMNSHO:)–is a theological description of how governments use coercive/putative power to restrain. Luther was fond of saying how governments could learn more (or as much) from Plato’s Republic than the bible, in the sense of fairly ordering a just non-theocratic society this side of heaven.
I am with John Stamper on this one.
Hey Everyone,
Great comments! John, your insights are very helpful. I do have to agree that the law was clearly not intended to change lovely old Edith’s behavior, but it is interesting to note how a law still emboldens her to defy it. It does seem to beg the question, “What will happen to people like Edith when laws like this continue to spread especially when, as you say, they don’t care about her at all?” Maybe that’s one for the ACLU:)
It seems to me that the problem with relying on laws to curb behavior only results in more and more laws. Some laws may help change outward behaviors in some as you said, but they certainly haven’t stopped the behaviors. We still have speeders, murderers, robbers, rapists, etc. I know I’m not saying anything new here.
Anyhow, great comments.
Thanks so much, Sean. Always enjoy your posts, and the threads you start always are things I learn stuff from.
I wonder whether maybe when we try to get to the deepest layer here — which makes me think of Mary Zahl and how she’s taught us to look for the prayer beneath the prayer — I wonder if there isn’t an abiding preoccupation with Getting People To Fly Right.
And I wonder if this isn’t true even when we have the “correct” grace-oriented theology?
Even then, I think the theology of grace becomes a TOOL in the service of the thing we are really concerned about.
Thus we look at these “third use” types who think that if people are just told what to do that will enable them to change. And we can smugly see that this is silly.
But then we (hip neo-Luther types) explain how if you respond to people with graceful loving, rather than demanding rules, that’s the way to birth real change. The emphasis is STILL on getting people to change, on an obsession to get people to FLY RIGHT IN THIS LIFE.
Even in this thread itself we find ourselves criticizing (say) the California nonsmoking law because it doesn’t effectively get our gal Edith to change on any deep level.
Yeah? Well, maybe that’s not gonna happen period. Maybe she’s bound. And maybe we need to TOTALLY give up measuring our ministries or other human activities by their effectiveness at “transforming” individual persons.
My own very limited view – and here I will benefit from you all who know a lot more than me about the Bible than I do – is that the Bible in its broadest strokes emphasizes three things concerning our badness and it being fixed:
(1) We are massively bound and unfree and afflicted (Romans 7).
(2) God will eventually heal us and free us completely (Wipe away every tear)
(3) That will not happen until the next world.
I know #3 is controversial. But as far as I know that’s the general arc of Scripture. Are there not occasional anticipations of it this side of the Jordan? (e.g. the healings of Jesus?) For sure. But on the whole the Biblical witness says to expect that life now is gonna suck bigtime, and on the whole people are gonna remain a mess.
That’s why I for example I can support (without wild enthusiasm) a law like the California smoking ban. It’s not because I think it’s gonna make Edith change. It’s based on very limited expectations. It’s about restraining her visible behavior in public and only then because of its immediate effect on others. It seems like a hard-ass thing (a LAW), but actually it’s very freeing, because it doesn’t have a hidden horizontal agenda from me that You’re Bad Inside And I Won’t Be Happy Till You Get Fixed.
My own take on true individual transformation – moral betterment – is that it is great when it happens, but when it does it is always the work of the Holy Spirit carrying out a plan and timetable for each person that is completely hidden in the Father’s unsearchable and mysterious counsel.
So my personal feeling is we should give up all hope of fixing people and just love them as broken bad people. When we give up on moralism, it gives us something else the Gospel can be about. And then, when God does make a person in this life a better person, it can be an unexpected joy that we can just be thankful for.
I agree with all of your three points completely John.
I just want to testify to how much smoking has enriched my life (I see that now that I have stoped for a brief period). My friends and I all work in the same church and smoke breaks always produced such lively fellowship and rich conversation (along with a diet coke or really bad deli coffee). Now that all of us have cut back on the smokes, so has the fellowship.
I think I will pick smoking back up as a Lenten Discipline and rekindle some of those deep and spiritual friendships.
Great conversation. John, your point about the law changing behavior (possible) and the law changing the heart (impossible) is so important! This is important to realize so that we don’t make generalizations about the law that are untrue to human experience. (That tends to really tick off non-Lutherans, and for good reason!)
But when we talk about the impotence of the law in changing the heart (which is what really matters) that resonates almost universally (though it is still offensive!)
(That was a lot of parentheses.)
And to go a step further, it is of course truer when we point out that grace changes the heart, as opposed to saying simply that it changes behavior. While we want to “fix” behavior, he seeks to kill the old and resurrect the new Adam in us.
“The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” – 1 Sam. 16
So then change that comes through the law may even be quite impressive on the outside, but it is still of no consequence to God. As he said of the Pharisees,
“They honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”
Ross, that is just not true because we still have murdereres, rapists, and myself, with all of my dark thoughts, and not so dark thoughts, running around.
Jacob,
Sorry, just to clarify, which part of what I said do you think is untrue? That the law can change behavior or that grace can change our hearts?
John Stamper!
You’re the greatest!
Just to clarify what I posted earlier, I’m not at all saying that we shouldn’t make civil laws (I’m not antinomian, after all ;).
I was merely trying to point out that the law works in the same way, no matter what use it is, namely, it incites rebellion and doesn’t have the power to bring forth what it demands.
I suppose that my comments on “behavior” are simply borne out of what society and, the church, to an extent, wish to focus on. I do not think that, as preachers of the Gospel, we ought to be concerned with behavior. On that point you and i are in total agreement.
I am currently, however, finding myself making little or no distinction of the law in it’s various uses, at least as far as it is received.
Ross,
That the law can change our behavior. If it does it is never lasting because that which is lasting must be born a new. I think 2 Corinthians 5:14 and 17-19 point that out. Drake’s earlier post on our failed New Years Resolutions, illustrates that even the laws which we place ourselves under does not have the power to produce lasting change. Instead we develop casuistic ways to get around the law (oh, its only five miles over the speed limit, well its my house I’ll smoke in it if I want to).
The laws job does show us a Holy God, and hence on our own its job is to kill and destroy. Hence, the Gospel is so important, and the unmerited love that defines the Gospel is the ONLY thing, and not always, that will produce any lasting change in the heart of a human.
Behavior Modification, when you really get down to the existential truth (especially when thoughts are included) is just non-existent. For example, I have stoped smoking, but I still think about it especially when I am around someone who is smoking. According to Jesus’ interpretation of the Law my actions and thoughts are the same thing. Grace does indeed change hearts, but don’t forget Romans 7 and being both a saint and a sinner at the same time.
Oh my, it’s late and I’m beginning to write something long. Forgive me if it’s unhelpful.
Yes, well said, Jacob. I’m glad you said no “lasting” change. This is true. My concern was more in regard to blanket statements like, “Law cannot change behavior,” or “Every time I face law, I want to do the opposite.” While these statements may be largely experienced, they are not universally true, so this can often be an alienating or condescending way to communicate with someone who struggles to understand the heart of the law/gospel dialectic or with someone who tends to “be good” in many ways outwardly for fear of punishment or love of reward.
It’s very plain to see that the law often brings outward obedience, as JZ pointed out, though of course, not true inward obedience. And for that reason the law increases the trespass, as you said. It’s also plain to see that the law does not always inspire outward disobedience. “Thou shalt not murder,” does not often make people murder. To say so would be offensive for no reason. If we’re going to offend (and we likely will when we preach as Jesus, Paul and Luther did), it seems we should choose our words carefully so the offense is aimed at exactly the right place.
“Thou shalt not murder” does not necessarily drive me to murder, but it certainly increases the trespass in my heart (or mind) because of my pride when I presume to obey it, and my grudging outward obedience which masks envy, bitterness, and resentment toward my neighbor. You made that point already. That is offensive and true and freeing when seen in the light of the gospel. But it seems to go too far when we illustrate the effect of the law simply by saying, “Nothing makes me want to smoke more than being told not to.” That will not only alienate people who disagree with you about the human will, but also those who are less outwardly rebellious and more conformist in their “personality”. Not to mention those who smoke simply because they’re helplessly addicted to nicotine. Such drastic statements about the law seem to say that our real problem is our obsession with breaking laws. And clearly our problem is much deeper. If we only did things because there were laws that said not to, our plight would be far simpler than it is, and easily remedied in very human terms. The problem is not that our hearts hate the law. That’s actually the beginning of the solution, because it makes us conscious of sin. The problem is that our hearts delight in evil and hate was is good.
Anyway, I think we agree on the doctrinal issue at hand; I’m just saying the communication aspect is something worthy of careful consideration. Notice how Luther distinguishes between civil and divine law and between outward and inward obedience to the law:
“The little word, ‘law’, you must not take here [in Romans] in human fashion, as a teaching about what works are to be done or not done. That is the way it is with human laws – the law is fulfilled by works even though there is no heart in them. But God judges according to what is at the bottom of the heart, and for this reason His law makes its demands on the inmost heart and cannot be satisfied with works…For even though you keep the law outwardly, with works, from fear of punishment or love of reward, nevertheless you do all this without willingness and pleasure, but rather with unwillingness, under compulsion; and you would rather do otherwise if the law were not there.”
So in this case, Luther (or Paul in Rm. 2) is actually talking to those who are compelled by the law to be outwardly obedient. He says, without the law they would do otherwise and that’s the whole issue. Apparently these people could bring themselves to obey the law with their behavior, but in their hearts, they hated everything the law stood for. In my view, we’ve got to take notes from Luther here regarding communication, so that (and I’m not directing this at you, Jacob, but all Lutheran-minded folks) we don’t get stuck in head-turning monologues that are largely insensitive to the issues of a whole slew of people.
Haha, my entire argument is in the form of the law. And it will likely make quite a few of us want to do the opposite! But perhaps if there’s truth in it, it will convict. The law is darn good at that.
I really appreciate this discussion on the law. I am especially appreciative of Stamper’s and Ross’ contributions.
As some of you know, I live in one of the most “law-abiding” countries in the world. After all, where else in the world can you find a law against chewing gum?
What you just said Ross, has been very helpful for me in expressing the problem with the law to a population that has been bred to be compliant.
I recognize that while on the surface, people here have modified their behaviour because of the laws of the land, it is hilarious how our children immediately buy gum the moment the cross the borders into some of our neighbouring countries. There is no change of heart. And ironically I would bet that many of these kids wouldn’t be chewing gum, if not for the fact that the law says, “Don’t!”
Yet, I believe in the law as a restraint is really something that is a necessary evil in the light of human depravity. I live in a region where the “rule of law” is not a given, and Singapore is an important exception to this. So I find the distinction between behaviour and heart as helpful for speaking to people about the realities of what the law can and cannot do!
This approach will then allow me to point out that true behavioural change can only happen from a change of heart. And that is why the gospel is so powerful. The nuancing of this I think, will help me communicate this distinction in a way that will ultimately reach those of us who live in the “fine” city of Singapore!
PS. Thanks, Sean for your original post… And Jacob, let’s share a cigar when we next meet!
What is the law?
Luther said even the 1st commandment “I am the Lord your God you should have not other God’s before me” contains Gospel in it, i.e. “I am the Lord your God.” That is good news! God has claimed to be on my side. I write this as a teaser, because sometimes what maybe a law for one, which incurrs rebellion, may not be so for someone else.
Another thought is someone maybe thankful that the warning label on the toaster says “do not stick fork or metal objects inside the toaster.” The news came out recently warning folks not to buy certain peanut products because of a selmonila outbreak. I was thankful for the “do not” in this case, and am not finding myself uncontrollably trying to buy a jar of peanut butter in rebellion to the news. (1st use)
I think the real rebellion starts entering in when the law is being squeezed into the office of sanctification (3rd use). It is contrary to the atonement system (A discussion for another time), and it attempts to rob the Holy Spirit of its office to sanctify (spiritus sanctus).
So those are a few thoughts.
But I believe belittling the law out of its functional proper office as a duplex legis (both 1st and 2nd use) is antinomian and shortsighted in its attempts see the law fully.
For those interested, a further discussion about the law can be found in Luther’s Anitnomian Dispute against Agricola.
Here, here Jake. I miss the “lung twinky” breaks…I for one, on Sean’s point, think Law DOES modify behaviour. For me at least, it makes me want to break it more.
Whoa!!! Man this thread has GROWN since I last checked it. 🙂
All very helpful comments. I’ll think about them this weekend.
Thanks by the way for the genuine and loving encouragement I get from you folks. I am often a little nervous posting because I don’t have the background you guys do. No seminary training, and I don’t read the Bible as I ought, and so on.
So it means a lot when I get such kind support from you all. Look forward to seeing you all — for the first time — in late March!
Regarding the question about whether the Law can truly modify a person’s behavior (in the direction that the law intends)…
One of the things I am wondering now is if maybe at times we aren’t just misunderstanding each other here, or somehow talking past each other.
I am wondering whether, when I (and others)say that the law can often be an effective tool here, I am being heard as saying:
(1) “It is always effective.”
or (2) “I deny that the law ever provokes a person to do the opposite.”
If so, let me say very clearly that I categorically reject the idea that the law always is effective, and that I absolutely affirm that one of the great Pauline insights is that it often causes a person to behave the OPPOSITE of what it demands.
So, in the language of the helping professions (gag!), I am honestly trying here to make sure that my conversational partner is being heard.
To name just one example of the characteristic failure of the law, look at dieting — the demand TYPICALLY results in the person gaining MORE weight, often in rebellion or whatever.
And just look teenagers to see the connection between Demand and doing the opposite, etc.
So YES… total agreement here.
But I guess what Ross and I (and Jon W etc.) are saying is that it seems crazy to claim that the law is powerless to EVER modify behavior. If true, that would mean that there’s no point to having laws against anything. It would mean that, if in NYC we made murder, theft, and rape legal, then we’d see no appreciable increase in incidents of them. After all the big bad law was just probably making people rape and loot and kill more.
Here’s a helpful thought experiment. Let’s ask the women on Mockingbird to comment on whether they’d mind living in a city where rape was legal. I bet they all have the correct theology of grace here and I bet all would tell us hands down to keep the laws on the books and have a healthy police force to boot. Because they (rightly) realize that laws do restrain a lot of people a lot of the time in terms of their outward behavior. And that the perpetual threat of jail can be a lasting behavior change for many of us.
Now of course, as we’ve all said, the heart is another matter, fer sure….
John Stamper,
I’m hearing you I think.
I think if the law is actually able to control behavior it is by means of supression and threat of punishment.
Also, Paul talks about the law being “written on hearts”. He seems to be telling us that, actually, no, we do not need law (written) to know what we ought and ought not to do.
Somebody help me get past this. i think I’m stuck.
Burton,
I think PZ and Fitz both do an excellent job of addressing your point, though differently in my opinion. I personally lean big time on the “Holy Spirit”…as I have to …for my sanity!