Smoking ban proposal
So, our Legislature is now debating the merits of a statewide smoking ban in all public places, except limosines and casinos. The first go-round of this bill was suppose to allow cities or counties to make the decision whether to disallow smoking in these places, but it's apparent that some folks in the House think that decision should be taken away from us.
Here's my spin on it: Smokers stink as bad as if they spent a couple hours in a hog confinement. They reek, and their odor preceeds them everywhere they go. They probably don't realize it, but they stink.
That being said, if they want to smoke, and if a business chooses to allow them to smoke in their confines, then that's their choice.
I don't allow smoking in my office by basically not putting out any ashtrays. I think smokers get the hint. Take it outside, folks.
However, down the street, our local restaurant's non-smoking area consists basically of one booth in the corner. About every other table has an ashtray at it. In fact, the waitresses smoke, and they have a particular table where they can park their cigarettes in between serving their customers.
Guess what - I still eat there. OK, it's the only restaurant in town, but I realize that when I walk out of there I will smell a bit of smoke.
The ads being run by the Dept. of Public Health are misleading. The people who appear on them say they make good money bartending or waiting tables, but that they don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Then why are they in this business? It's called an occupational hazard.
Steve Deace brought up this point: The bartender complains of enhaling second hand smoke, but the irony is that he's serving alcohol to patrons who may potentially get drunk and drive, beat up their wife or children, or make poor decisions that can lead to disease or unwanted pregnancy. Who's causing who to have poorer health?
So, while I am not in favor of people smoking, and think that it's a stinky dirty habit, I'll still support a business' choice to allow smoking or not. It's not government's business to determine this for us. If we must have a ban, at least allow it to be determined on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis. It still provides some "power to the people" rather than it be dictated on high to us.
I will say this: Our state representative Kurt Swaim, a Democrat from Bloomfield, voted against the bill. Good for him to go against the blue grain.
Here's my spin on it: Smokers stink as bad as if they spent a couple hours in a hog confinement. They reek, and their odor preceeds them everywhere they go. They probably don't realize it, but they stink.
That being said, if they want to smoke, and if a business chooses to allow them to smoke in their confines, then that's their choice.
I don't allow smoking in my office by basically not putting out any ashtrays. I think smokers get the hint. Take it outside, folks.
However, down the street, our local restaurant's non-smoking area consists basically of one booth in the corner. About every other table has an ashtray at it. In fact, the waitresses smoke, and they have a particular table where they can park their cigarettes in between serving their customers.
Guess what - I still eat there. OK, it's the only restaurant in town, but I realize that when I walk out of there I will smell a bit of smoke.
The ads being run by the Dept. of Public Health are misleading. The people who appear on them say they make good money bartending or waiting tables, but that they don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Then why are they in this business? It's called an occupational hazard.
Steve Deace brought up this point: The bartender complains of enhaling second hand smoke, but the irony is that he's serving alcohol to patrons who may potentially get drunk and drive, beat up their wife or children, or make poor decisions that can lead to disease or unwanted pregnancy. Who's causing who to have poorer health?
So, while I am not in favor of people smoking, and think that it's a stinky dirty habit, I'll still support a business' choice to allow smoking or not. It's not government's business to determine this for us. If we must have a ban, at least allow it to be determined on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis. It still provides some "power to the people" rather than it be dictated on high to us.
I will say this: Our state representative Kurt Swaim, a Democrat from Bloomfield, voted against the bill. Good for him to go against the blue grain.
posted by bgunzy at 2/28/2008 07:15:00 PM
4 comments
