Light 'em up!
By a vote of 12-11, the New Hampshire State Senate killed a bill that would have banned smoking in all restaurants and bars throughout the state. Patrons can continue to go to dining establishments and smoke if that restaurant chooses to allow it.
I wrote a brief - brief - opinion piece in the Courier before the bill came up to vote recommending that it be defeated. I thought it was over-broad and generally too strict. Since the bill failed by one vote, will I flatter myself that I influenced the outcome? Of course I will!
posted by Joshua @ 12:36 PM
3 Comments:
Interesting. Chicago recently passed a smoking ban in all public places (including a 15 foot radius of all entrances to buildings), and even more recently in all restaurants, except for those with a bar inside, and then smoking is only allowed in the bar section.
Bars, and restaurants that contain them, will also have to comply with this ban, but not until 2008.
With the current state of most establishments, I'm in favor of a smoking ban. However, a more ideal situation would be to impose stricter guidlines for smoking and non-smoking sections, so as to completely eliminate the chance of secondhand smoke.
I don't approve of smoking. I mean, it's better than a heroin habit, but it's still bad for you... But if you choose to smoke, it shouldn't necessarily disqualify you from doing things such as dining out or having a few drinks with friends.
But, the rights on non-smokers must also be taken into account. So, it's a delicate balance of how to best execute any such regulation.
As a visitor to this well-informed and highly intelligent blog, I have never before been compelled to reply. Frankly, I didn't think I could add anything more since you all have such incredible (and diverse) opinions. However, this subject is one that is quite near and dear to my heart. As a Granite Stater, this topic is of great interest to me.
As someone who grew up in a house full of smokers (both parents and 2 older siblings), I suffered from repeated upper respiratory infections, ear infections, and asthma. As soon as I was old enough to move out on my own and live in a smoke-free environment, the asthma disappeared, as well as the URI's.
Coincidence? Hardly, given what we now know about second-hand smoke. The so-called non-smoking sections of most restaurants here in New Hampshire are a joke. The smoke wafts into parts of some non-smoking sections, making it a most disgusting and uncomfortable experience (and also eliminating those restaurants from our list of choices). Other restaurants have smoking sections toward the front of the establishment, which means running the gauntlet through the haze to get to the non-smoking section. Again, more eliminated dining selections.
Even though it has been many years since my last full-blown asthma attack, just a few minutes' exposure to second-hand smoke brings back that all-too-familiar - and frightening - feeling of my airways closing up. Dining out in a partial smoking establishment is not worth that feeling or risk. This bill that the NH State Senate so foolishly defeated was the best hope that people like me had for finally being able to go wherever we wanted to eat once again without fear of choking on smoke.
Live Free or Die........yep, ya got that right!
I firmly believe that the economic argument ("no one will go out/fly if we ban smoking in bars/on airplanes") against smoking bans for public places is bogus. The evidence has not born it out. As Prometheus pointed out, New York City bars have not suffered a lack of patronage on account of the city's smoking ban and my own unscientific poll of friends who smoke suggests that many of them actually enjoy the social sub-environment created by going outside with others for a "smoke break". And most everyone agrees that not having your clothes smell like an ashtray the next morning is a positive thing.
Furthermore, any argument based on concern for personal liberty must contend with the negative externalities of secondhand smoke, as aptly described by our Anonymous friend from New Hampshire. If pollution laws can impose the economic cost of industry's environmental impact on those who create it, then I see little reason why governments should not be justified in imposing restrictions (smoking bans) and costs (ciggarette taxes) on tobacco use. The adverse effects of second hand smoke are extremely well documented (back me up here Eudemonic), so there can be little doubt that public good is being protected. People should, in large part, be free to do with themselves what they please (so long as they are not intentionally mislead or misinformed), but when their choices negatively impact the lives of others, then the state has an obligation to step in.
Post a Comment
<< Home