Yes, smokers, you are right. Government should not have the right to take away your right to smoke, but it does have the power to keep you from smoking in certain places, so other people that want a healthy life can have one. Your smoking habits are not the government’s concern, but rather other people’s, whom are affected by your decisions.
A nonsmoker’s right to life
Yes, smokers, you are right. Government should not have the right to take away your right to smoke, but it does have the power to keep you from smoking in certain places, so other people that want a healthy life can have one. Your smoking habits are not the government’s concern, but rather other people’s, whom are affected by your decisions.
Perhaps only when the smoke leaves your face you can actually see the larger picture. No one is saying YOU can’t hurt yourself, it’s that the government has an obligation to its citizens that your smoking doesn’t hurt others.
Last May, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed the Clean Air Act (SB571), which will ban smoking in all enclosed public places, including bars, taverns and restaurants. The only places that would still allow smoking inside are tobacconists, cigar bars and up to 25 percent of hotel rooms.
The Oregonian reported “it would protect the 35,000 Oregonians who work in bars and taverns from the well-documented dangers of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of asthma and lung cancer.”
The smoking ban is a no-brainer for restaurants, considering that “smoking sections” never worked. In fact, even waiting for the streetcar 20 feet away from a smoker still can have adverse affects on the nonsmokers who breathe in the fumes.
It’s not just the “health” aspect of the smoking ban that I support but I also support the economy and the amount of money people can make if more people would enter restaurants after they discover they are smoke-free now.
Looking at the big picture, the smoking ban can increase the amount of jobs, because the more people start going to new places to eat, the more business the restaurants or bars get, and thus the more employees they will need to hire to keep the customers happy.
Prior to the ban, myself and many other nonsmokers would not step inside a smoking environment regardless of how “tasty” the food was or how great of a cocktail the Portland Dining Guide might advertise. Once the ban comes into effect on Jan. 1, 2009, I can enjoy finding new places to eat and drink.
Laura Culberson, director of the Tobacco-Free Coalition of Oregon, says “tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death and disability for everyone. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, illegal drugs, AIDS, car accidents, murder and suicide combined.
Secondhand smoke alone is the number three preventable cause of death, and causes the same diseases in smokers as nonsmokers. For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, it takes one nonsmoker with them.”
Really, if you think about it and take into consideration the overall effects of smoking on workers, there is no real reason why a smoking ban is a bad idea. It feels unfair for many workers who are not protected under Oregon’s smoke-free workplace law, established in 2001, where the only employees excluded from secondhand smoke protection in their workplace were hospitality workers–a total of 33,000 Oregonians.
It is fair to say that everyone has the right to smoke if they choose to, but it is as equally fair that every worker in these “smoking” environments has the right to choose to not be inhaling your smoke. Do smokers really need a cigarette that badly? Perhaps they should get some help if being inside a bar automatically triggers the need to smoke.
Or, as Oregon law would agree, smokers should just smoke outside and away from my tar-free lungs.
