I'm so happy about the smoking ban that looks like it's coming to Baltimore by 2008. The City Council just passed something or other about it, and, listening to Sheila Dixon now, it sounds like it will go through.
I was hanging out with my friend Marcia over the weekend. She's a chain smoker - literally four cigarettes in twenty minutes - and is one of those who says, "You know, I just don't like the government legislating this kind of thing. Leave it up to the businesses. Smoking is legal, so it should be allowed that bar-owners can have smokers smoke there."
I'm sympathetic to this, but it doesn't convince me. I respect her right as a smoker, but why does that right supercede my right to clean air that won't cause me red, dry eyes, coughing, and, possible, cancer? I guess the option for me is just not to go out. Or go to a coffeeshop. Or Red Maple, the only non-smoking bar I know of in Baltimore, where you can't even go in wearing a t-shirt. But these options seem like putting me way more out of my way than the minority smoker who is causing the disruption of clean, healthy air. Again, why is the smoker's rights more important than mine? Or, for that matter, the workers'?
And I also don't buy the hurt business argument. In Boston, the smoking ban has helped business. I think it would do the same here.
Again, I'm usually pretty much all about government's hands off, except in this case, where the greater public health is affected.
But this is all justifying it in a legal/ethical sense. I like to have an objective argument. But the reason I'm looking forward to the ban is because, well, I hate smoking. I even freely admit I'm probably more anti-smoking than most. I grew up with smokers, and hate it. My mother smoked like a chimney and I used to hide her cigarettes so she couldn't do it anymore. It never worked. When I see a mother in a car smoking with her kids in there, it makes my blood boil because that was me, 25 years ago. I could never date anyone who smokes. I just can't stand it that much. The smell is irritating and makes my eyes hurt. So I'm not the most unbiased observer of this. But I definitely look forward to what might happen if this ban would happen.
No more having to leave early because my eyes hurt. No more sore throat when I wake up. No more smoky clothes that sometimes require a dry cleaner. No more meals interrupted by that particular rudeness.
Now I have more to look forward to in 2008 than the exit of George W. Bush from office.
Syria From The Outside
-
Jenna Krajeski looks at how the Syrian conflict has bled into Turkey: It
has cost Turkey seven hundred and fifty million dollars to host the
[Syrian] refug...
23 minutes ago
12 comments:
It's so nice to see someone else elaborating the same reasons I have for being really happy at the prospect that this ban might go through (the City Council commitee voted for it, now it has to pass the entire Council, and then get signed.) I think a real issue that can't be argued with is the protection of the health of bar/restaurant workers. Unlike patrons, they have to go to work. If states have banned smoking in all other workplaces, how can they keep these workers at risk.
Red Star (Fells), Golden West Cafe (Hampden), and The Sly Fox (Locust Pt.) and are also non/semi-nonsmoking bars.
I'm all for the smoking ban. If the bars would also lower the volume on the music, just so it doesn't cause permanent hearing loss and voice damage from yelling to be heard over the blasting music, I'd go to bars again.
I am so happy to hear it is going through. I wrote my city council person to support it. Not so much for my sakes, but for the sake of the health of those who spend their entire day breathing in that crap. Funny how OSHA can regulate workplace safety in so many other ways but not that.
I live in California, and I'm a smoker, and even I appreciate the smoking ban here. Most bars have a smoking patio, which is the best of both worlds, and I don't think there have been any negative effects (aside from tourists coming into my bar already smoking a cigarette, annoyed that I kick them out).
Have you heard about the proposed smoking ban in Belmont, CA? Check it out here> They want to revises the city's current smoking ban in workplaces and most public areas, to now include any residence except single-family detached homes. Its a very hard core rule, but I'm okay with it. I've had too many family members that were affected by smoking/cancer.
we were living in Georgia when they went smoke-free a few years back (c'mon B'more, if you can't catch up with friggin' GA...), and, even down there, the transition was pretty painless for everyone involved. patronage pretty much stayed the same, or even picked up.
It really has nothing to do with the rights of the smoker or the rights of the patron. What is important is that employees in the service industry are provided with a safe working environment. Unlike being exposed to dust as a coalminer smoking is not an inherent risk of working as a bartender, server, dishwasher, etc. Thankfully more states are catching on. Also in regards to what is being done in california, my municipality banned smoking in all public places both outdoor and indoors years ago.
Although I live in Columbia, where cigarette smoking is not allowed, I work in Baltimore and often go out in the city on Friday nights. I just hate the fact that Baltimore has not banned smoking in bars and restaurants! My clothes stink, my coat stinks, my throat and eyes hurt...it's almost more trouble than it's worth at this point. Since only about 20% of the population still smokes, I find it amazing that eateries and bars still cater to such a tiny minority of the population.
Having said this, I'd love a list of all the bars and restaurants in the city that no longer allow smoking. I would make it a point to only patronize those places. Does anyone know if such a place exists? Thanks in advance!
I smoke seldomly, perhaps once a month. If the city wants to ban smoking on city property, even parks and sidewalks, well fine, that's there perogative. I take serious umbrage of them deciding "we know what's best for you" within the walls of a private establishment. If, as anti-smoking advocates claim, there was no negative(or some claim actually postive) effect on buisness, then guess what, buisnesses would look where the bottom line in and be non-smoking.
They are lying, pure and simple.
So what else could be next, dirty words?, Nuts?, Anti-Government comments?, Polyester?, Wool?, Alchohol?
Lets the people who spent sometimes a million dollars or more to purchase their bar, and pay tens of thousands in taxes establish what goes on within their walls without government sticking in its hands. They are old enough to no longer need a mommy to tell them what to do.
You people, learn your damn facts. ONLY ABOUT 20% STILL SMOKE? Are you out of your damn mind? Smoking was reported in 2002 at a decent 67.8% of the Maryland population, most being concentrated in the Greater Baltimore Area. And, I don't know who you keep hearing this nonsense about "employee safety" from, but ever talked to an Ironworker? Or maybe a fisherman? How about a freight worker, who has to inhale exhaust and fumes that would make even a CIGARETTE SMOKER gag. And for the person that advocates the ban on smoking in people's homes, you should die in a fire you ignorant nazi. Of course you wouldn't mind, YOU DON'T SMOKE! Not to mention, there is more than just one bar in the Baltimore area (downtown even!) that is smoke free, you should do your research instead of making smokers commit to your way of life in the places you frequent. Nazi pigs.
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) causes disease in non-smokers. Workplace bans on smoking are interventions to reduce exposure to ETS to try to prevent harmful health effects. The Irish Government on the 29th March 2004 introduced the first national comprehensive legislation banning smoking in all workplaces including bars and restaurants. http://www.chantixhome.com/
A whole array of anti-smoking therapies are available in the market that you can get hold of for the purpose of triggering off smoking cessation. Some of the procedures to treat smoking addiction, namely, quit smoking medicines such as chantix (champix), Zyban and nicotine replacement therapies(nicotine gum, patches and lozenges) can help you to quit smoking at the earliest. To get hold of detailed information on these anti-smoking treatment procedures, visit the website http://www.chantixmagic.com.
Post a Comment