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:
And Id like to also point out Elesha Gayman and McKinley Bailey, I've met these Reps recently and I hope everyone who can, takes the oppotunity to lend there support to these amazingly patriotic people.
I am glad to know that they are out there standing up for us!
Whether a business allows smoking or does not is simply not the business of government. If a business decides that a non-smoking facility is to their advantage then they are perfectly within their rights to make it so. If a business decides to allow smoking that is their decision too. It is no way shape or form the business of the government.
This is a very simple debate at its heart. Some people wish to control the property of others and make them use it as they see fit. There are those, and unfortunately they seem to gravitate to positions of power, that believe that your property is really not yours adn that they have claim to it and its use. They want to control you and how you live your life and run your affairs. These types of people are extremely dangerous and should never, ever be allowed to occupy a position of power.
This isn't about smoking, It is about Liberty. It is about those people who would take Liberty from you. Those people are dangerous and must be stopped.
And for the record I don't smoke. Though when I hear these debates with nannyist scolds I'm sorely tempted to go out and buy a carton of camels just on general principle.
Well, if you buy a pack of Camels, you'll be helping out the kids.
Gayman/Bailey Supporter - What's the deal, Drive By Blogger? I've seen similar posts on other blogs - even though they might be vets (at least Bailey is, dunno about Gayman), they are still Democrats, and subject to observation (like some GOP'ers as well).
Smoking, even second hand smoke kills. I wouldn't really like to die b/c someone else chooses to smoke. So, I agree with the new law... it effects everyone.
Post a Comment
<< Home