Improve smoking ban
The current ordinance that Springfield has regarding smoking in restaurants is too weak. The Springfield City Council and the next governor of Missouri should work to ban smoking in all public places. Secondhand smoke is a public health issue. It is also a personal one: I have a right to breathe clean air.
In July 2003, Springfield passed a law prohibiting smoking in restaurants, with the exception of eateries with annual alcohol sales exceeding $200,000 or when 50 percent or more of sales come from alcohol. There is also an exception for restaurants with 50 seats or less that may allow smoking, and a restaurant that sells liquor can allow smoking in a separate, ventilated area. If you ask me, way too many “exceptions.”
Many states have placed a ban on smoking in public establishments. For example, the Clean Indoor Air Act became effective in New York in July 2003 and the Freedom to Breathe Act became effective in Minnesota in October 2007. It is now time for the state of Missouri to follow their lead and enact legislation that will ban smoking in all public establishments: restaurants, stores, bowling alleys, bars, etc.
Why is it that we have to pass laws in order to protect the nonsmoker? Everybody knows that smoking is dangerous for your health, smokers and nonsmokers alike. It is not news or shocking to cite that smoking and secondhand smoke cause or can lead to bronchitis, asthma, emphysema, COPD, heart disease, lung cancer, etc. I know a lot of smokers do not yet have these conditions, but the key word is “yet.” On the other hand, I have family members and friends with some of these conditions, some were caused by their own smoking, others were caused by secondhand smoke.
The fact that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer is reason enough to ban smoking in all public establishments, not just restaurants. Why single out restaurants? Secondhand smoke is just as dangerous in a restaurant as it is a bowling alley. Plus, if a nonsmoking measure is statewide then businesses will not have to compete.
I smoked cigarettes for seven years and I remember offending people with my secondhand smoke and its offensive odor. I thought I cared and even felt bad, but I wanted to smoke and chose to do so in the presence of many nonsmokers. About 10 years ago, I was smoking with some friends while we bowled at Enterprise Lanes. The family in the next lane asked if I would stop smoking because they had a baby with them. Shame on me! And good for them for sticking up for their right to breathe clean air!
Smokers, yes you, listen: I do not want to breathe in your smoke.
I do not want it in my hair or clothes. I like to smell good. Every time I go to a place where smoking is allowed, when I come home I have to wash my hair. Because I, like my purse and clothes, stink!! I believe that the right to breathe clean air is greater than the right to exhale smoke into one’s clean air.
It all comes down to this: it is a MAJOR inconvenience for people to breathe in secondhand smoke, while it is a MINOR inconvenience for the smoker to go outside.
Loading ...
November 6th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
http://whyquit.com/pr/102208.html
November 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
First things first, -
“Smokers, yes you, listen: I do not want to breathe in your smoke.”
Then by all means, vote with your feet, make an intelligent choice for yourself and don’t patronize restaurants or other venues that allow smoking. Thats a minor inconvenience too,…isn’t it?
Nonsmoking patrons and employees enter a private establishment as a privilege extended by the owner, (That’s right,..PRIVILEGE EXTENDED BY THE OWNER) not as a constitutional right. This does not automatically confer any entitlement to a special consideration of individual preferences for a smoke-free environment by the owner on behalf of the potential patron or employee if it is not in the business owners’ interest to provide this environment while acting only as their host/employer. The private business owner’s right to allow his patrons and/or employees to engage in a legal activity SUPERCEDES THE INTOLLERANCE of that activity by those who would patronize, or accept employment in the establishment by that privilege. Accepting the open invitation means accepting it as offered or as available at the time it is offered including the environment in which they will enter or work. THE CHOICE TO BE THERE IS YOURS ALONE.
More Importantly, there’s this, - “On the other hand, I have family members and friends with some of these conditions, some were caused by their own smoking, others were caused by secondhand smoke.”
Both you, your friends and family members that may be affected have my deepest sympathy, but your claim is based on propaganda, and not on any credible scientific evidence.
More than 150 Environmental Tobacco Smoke studies have been conducted and completed between 1980 and 2006.
Only 16% of these studies show an elevated risk of harm from exposure to Second Hand Smoke.
NOT ACTUAL HARM mind you, but simply an elevated RISK of harm.
More than 70% show NO RISK at all, while 14% actually reflect a protective quality attributed to exposure to Second Hand Smoke.
Such a wide margin in published study results hardly constitutes conclusive evidence of anything other than the willingness of Anti-tobacco proponents to distort the facts, omit the truth, and demonstrate their capacity to do whatever it takes to have the end justify the means. Don’t kid yourself, the end goal here is a total prohibition on tobacco use.
So,…educate yourself and consider this;
If it can be proven that smoking really does cause cancer, why hasn’t it been banned outright along with asbestos and red dye #2? This means that there really isn’t enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate anything beyond the “casual statistical link”, which is the only thing that CAN be proven and only enough to hold tobacco companies for ransom in huge court settlements (almost all of which goes straight into the General fund of participating states, and not to individual “victims”) and regulate tobacco until it’s nothing more than a cash cow for the government. -OR-, there IS enough evidence to conclusively link tobacco use to every disease known to man, but the government is willing to tolerate a large number of deaths if a carcinogen is clearly profitable enough. Either way, it’s about money and your beef is with the Federal Government, not with the estimated 45 million American Smokers.
And specifically not with the business property owners that prefer to excercise their PRIVATE property rights and allow it to occur.
You don’t have to patronize any business that doesn’t meet your personal preference.