Smoking
Not too long ago the city council for my hometown voted to ban smoking in area restaurants. Its not a complete ban but it does require restaurants who have smoking sections to completely close them off and provide a separate ventilation system so most restaurants abandoned the idea of a smoking section. On a personal level this made me happy. I have never been very fond of people smoking around me nor do I appreciate my child inhaling the smoke. As a concerned citizen, however, this type of legislation is just not right.
It doesn't seem like a big deal. Smokers can surely get through a meal without a cigarette, right? The problem is that when you create a law like that you're setting a precedent for government to tell business owners and property owners what kind of activities are legal in their establishments.
Keep in mind that for an adult smoking is not an illegal activity. Therefore, what right does government have to ban this activity in private establishments. When Minot was debating this issue I heard to main arguments for banning smoking:
On the surface these both seem like reasonable arguments. Under closer scrutiny, however, they don't make much sense.
If there were a great number of people in the area who did not like restaurants with smoking sections why were those establishments able to stay in business? If it was that big of a deal then the restaurants should have been losing business and more than likely they would have corrected the problem themselves. But they didn't have to. What does that mean? People didn't really care. In my experience, some of the restaurants had a reputation for being "smoky" and people who do not like that kind of atmosphere stayed away. Obviously this did not harm those "smoky" restaurants as they apparently serviced a clientele who either smoked or did not mind the smoke.
As for the second argument: If you don't like the smoke, don't go to the restaurant or don't work there. Its as easy as that. If a restaurant loses enough business due to smoking they will change their policy without the need for government involvement. What about the people who don't have any place else to work? Well, tough luck. Digging ditches isn't exactly good for your back either but people do it every day.
The First District Health Unit ran ad after ad during the debate in Minot over the ban regarding the adverse effects second hand smoke can have on a person. I think its fairly obvious that its true, second hand smoke isn't good for a person (though I don't think its nearly the killer its made out to be), but should the decision on whether or not to be around smoke be left up to us? Do we really need our government to step in and save us from ourselves? By making laws like this our legislators are basically saying that we do not know how to take care of ourselves.
I am not a smoker, nor do I enjoy being around smokers, but I have a problem with laws banning perfectly legal activities in private establishments.
A business owner has a right to allow smokers in his restaurants. Where do laws like this stop? Are we soon going to see a ban on greasy food because overweight people are more expensive to insure and drive up premiums? Is salt next? Is beer next?
Could be, at the rate we're going.
By banning smoking the city council basically solved a problem that didn't exist in the first place. They forced businesses to expend more money then they did before so that they could continue to provide the same level of service to their clientele. Therefore these businesses raised prices which, though perhaps in only a small way, effected the economy. These businesses will also have to go under additional inspection, which will possibly require more inspectors and more training for those inspectors, which means more tax dollars.
Look at California. In 1998 the California state legislature passed a law banning smoking in all indoor public spaces, including bars and nightclubs.
Smoking is also prohibited in all restaurants and many other public places. Can you imagine the amount of tax dollars they are spending to enforce this law? The tickets, inspections, court dates...can a state that can't even keep its power plants running really afford this kind of thing? Considering the so-called problem they're trying to solve, couldn't they have found a more meaningful place to spend those tax dollars? Look at the places where smoking is banned, places like bars, nightclubs and restaurants. Where exactly can you perform the supposedly legal act of smoking in the state of California? Only in the privacy of your own home with the doors locked and the shades pulled, apparently. If they're trying to get rid of smoking they should just ban it and stop screwing around.
Smoking is not a popular habit with most of us, but he next time you vote on a law about smoking start thinking about what they could ban next, it might be something you enjoy.
It doesn't seem like a big deal. Smokers can surely get through a meal without a cigarette, right? The problem is that when you create a law like that you're setting a precedent for government to tell business owners and property owners what kind of activities are legal in their establishments.
Keep in mind that for an adult smoking is not an illegal activity. Therefore, what right does government have to ban this activity in private establishments. When Minot was debating this issue I heard to main arguments for banning smoking:
- People want to enjoy a dining experience without smoke.
- Smokers are effecting the health of their fellow diners and waitresses.
On the surface these both seem like reasonable arguments. Under closer scrutiny, however, they don't make much sense.
If there were a great number of people in the area who did not like restaurants with smoking sections why were those establishments able to stay in business? If it was that big of a deal then the restaurants should have been losing business and more than likely they would have corrected the problem themselves. But they didn't have to. What does that mean? People didn't really care. In my experience, some of the restaurants had a reputation for being "smoky" and people who do not like that kind of atmosphere stayed away. Obviously this did not harm those "smoky" restaurants as they apparently serviced a clientele who either smoked or did not mind the smoke.
As for the second argument: If you don't like the smoke, don't go to the restaurant or don't work there. Its as easy as that. If a restaurant loses enough business due to smoking they will change their policy without the need for government involvement. What about the people who don't have any place else to work? Well, tough luck. Digging ditches isn't exactly good for your back either but people do it every day.
The First District Health Unit ran ad after ad during the debate in Minot over the ban regarding the adverse effects second hand smoke can have on a person. I think its fairly obvious that its true, second hand smoke isn't good for a person (though I don't think its nearly the killer its made out to be), but should the decision on whether or not to be around smoke be left up to us? Do we really need our government to step in and save us from ourselves? By making laws like this our legislators are basically saying that we do not know how to take care of ourselves.
I am not a smoker, nor do I enjoy being around smokers, but I have a problem with laws banning perfectly legal activities in private establishments.
A business owner has a right to allow smokers in his restaurants. Where do laws like this stop? Are we soon going to see a ban on greasy food because overweight people are more expensive to insure and drive up premiums? Is salt next? Is beer next?Could be, at the rate we're going.
By banning smoking the city council basically solved a problem that didn't exist in the first place. They forced businesses to expend more money then they did before so that they could continue to provide the same level of service to their clientele. Therefore these businesses raised prices which, though perhaps in only a small way, effected the economy. These businesses will also have to go under additional inspection, which will possibly require more inspectors and more training for those inspectors, which means more tax dollars.
Look at California. In 1998 the California state legislature passed a law banning smoking in all indoor public spaces, including bars and nightclubs.
Smoking is also prohibited in all restaurants and many other public places. Can you imagine the amount of tax dollars they are spending to enforce this law? The tickets, inspections, court dates...can a state that can't even keep its power plants running really afford this kind of thing? Considering the so-called problem they're trying to solve, couldn't they have found a more meaningful place to spend those tax dollars? Look at the places where smoking is banned, places like bars, nightclubs and restaurants. Where exactly can you perform the supposedly legal act of smoking in the state of California? Only in the privacy of your own home with the doors locked and the shades pulled, apparently. If they're trying to get rid of smoking they should just ban it and stop screwing around.Smoking is not a popular habit with most of us, but he next time you vote on a law about smoking start thinking about what they could ban next, it might be something you enjoy.
Kenny
Move_Zig
Graeme
likwidshoe
C. Y.
laydownSally
Lestat
goon
pparets
Puzzlefeet
