So Seattle is talking about making smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.. illegal hello California. Baltimore?
I've had some arguments with people who are against this and their main points are,
1. I should be able to smoke wherever I want. (Sometimes followed with, 'It's my right.')
2. It should be up to the owner of the establishment to allow or disallow smoking.
2a. It should be up to the owner of the establishment to allow an already legal activity should they choose to.
Addressing point 1.
Would not the non smoker say, 'I should be able to not breath smoke wherever I want.'? So really this breaks down into a selfish yes/no pov depending on the stance of the individual. Even though this results in an overwhelming loss for the smokers, 80% of the population does not smoke, it is my opinion that since this point embraces immediate self interest it has no merit. For the few who said it's your right to smoke wherever you want, you're wrong.
Addressing point 2.
This has at least some argumentative worth. It's worth asking the question. Should active support of the second largest health epidemic in the USA be at the discretion of individual establishment owners? The Libertarian in me says yes. I do not. In most states establishments that serve food / alcohol have forty or more specific health related points they must pass or be subject to fines, citations, or even shut down. Info I find it bizarre that this type of quality and safety would be enforced by law but smoking (again the second largest health problem in the USA, only recently bumped from number one by fat) is embraced far and wide in the same establishments. If one is a public safety issue why not the other?
I've many times heard alcohol brought up as a comparison.
"You can drink there, why should you not smoke?"
People can choose to drink or not drink. People cannot choose to breath or not breath.
Additionally, alcohol is already surrounded by laws. People are jailed on an hourly basis for breaking these laws.
"If you don't want to breath my smoke, don't go there."
Please refer to point number 1. The sheer selfishness and self centeredness of this point discredits it. However I will address from the same selfish perspective. A smoker can choose to be a patron at any establishment, smoking or non. The individual who said the above is greatly reducing the number of choices of the person they are addressing. While this person is irritated at the idea of being inconvenienced with non smoking establishments, they are actively manifesting, in reverse, the feared reality onto non smokers with this approach.
I've really noticed that both sides feel persecuted. The smokers feel persecuted because they may not get to smoke at their favorite restaurant, the non smokers feel persecuted because they either cannot go to their favorite bar or they must breath smoke.
I empathize with both sides of the coin.
That being said, I believe that personal feelings must be removed from this issue in order to see it clearly.
A. Smoking is a vast public health hazard.
B. Should something be done about it?
C. Who and what should or should not be able to make these type of decisions?
If we are going to humble ourselves and look at this problem from a public health and safety stand point, then yes something has to be done about it. Sadly for all you government haters out there, the government is the only body capable of doing something about it.
Considering that 20% of the population smokes and 100% of the population either does or will potentially suffer from it, the only sane answer is to reduce the negative effect of smoking.
Banning smoking from indoor establishments like Seattle, King county, whomever, is looking at is a very direct and simple solution.
Other solutions would be to create very strict and regulated ventilation requirements. If there is no smoke in the air you and I won't be breathing it.
Another is look at the chemicals used in cigarettes. This will simply never happen.
I am surprised at what I have not heard from knee jerk liberals and conservatives alike. The fact that the idea of banning smoking in indoor establishments is a spit in the eye at big tobacco.
Another issue is the 'loss of business'. It's been reported both ways. That different establishments that went non smoking reported an increase or decrease in revenue. Common sense tells me that is all the establishments in an area were non smoking that there would be little to no change. Save of course the already non smoking establishments that would have a sudden surge in appeal to smokers since they would be new to them.
-Alan
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder