Mexico to drop smoking like a bad habit?

(This is the kind of title I come up when trying to avoid coming off as being too dry. Personally, I think I'd choose lame over cheesin' any day. Whatever, I consider myself to be tentatively open to gradual, and highly regulated, change). In the same week, both the Mexico City Legislature--while not officially one of Mexico's 31 states, as the country's single Federal District, it enjoys the legal status of a state--and the National Senate, approved separate but nearly identical bans on smoking in public areas. In the capital city, the move is considered just another phase of the leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard's ongoing campaign to improve the quality of daily life of the city's 20 million (and counting) residents--he's the same guy who earlier this year got in the news for his plan to make space in the city by removing 20,000 illegal street vendors from the infamously congested historic district.

Just a side point: Many in PRI have opposed his policies arguing that instead of 'wasting' money on artificial, often aesthetic, improvements to the city, he should be doing more to address the poor's more pressing needs of access to clean water and adequate housing. In particular, the opposition points to his seemingly frivolous spending on the first couple of projects he launched after being elected. One was to install thousands of street lamps in unlit, notoriously sketchy neighborhoods in hopes of reducing street crime. The other was to build, taking after the New York model, several 'urban beaches.' For millions of Mexico City's poorest, it was their first opportunity ever to enjoy a day laxin' at the beach. Are these projects going to feed and house the poor? Obviously not. However, I think it is achieving Ebrard's main objective of gaining the trust and respect of the people, who he hopes will then give him the benefit of the doubt as he begins fulfilling his promises--obviously, more cumbersome, and costly, then lighting up a bunch of sketchy alleys--to also address their most fundamental material needs. For now, I trust him. We can only wait and see if his plan is more than just big talk.

Anyway, getting back to the smoking ban, these landmark bills have been criticized on two fronts. Firstly, many, especially the cops themselves, are already questioning if they have the manpower to enforce such a ban on a city, let alone, national-level. Secondly, even if enforced properly, the question remains: which law trumps the other? Technically, since the one passed in the capital is slightly more rigorous, one would assume that it'd override its sister-act (NICE) in any gray areas of legality. However, on a practical level, cops, but also restaurant owners, have expressed confusion.

Some smokers--anticipating the hassle of having to get up and leave a public bar or restaurant to light up--concede that the ban might just do the trick to force them to kick the habit cold-turkey. Others are banking on the bill's unspirited enforcement to lead to its eventual de-facto scrapping.

As for now, lawmakers don't seem to be taking the ban lightly. After already having been passed by the Lower House before then being approved yesterday by the Senate, President Fecal, who has expressed strong support for the bill, is expected to sign the ban into law in the next week or so. After he does, smokers here will have just 90 days before they have to take a deep breath (maybe their first of many) and wait to see how seriously the law will infringe upon their right to freely pollute themselves and the air around them.