On Nov. 8, Washington voters should adopt Initiative 901, which will ban indoor smoking from bars, restaurants, skating rinks and bowling alleys. In effect, I-901 bans all indoor smoking. It's the last step in a long process....The newspaper's blunder in the first paragraph is telling. I-901 doesn't prohibit "all indoor smoking," instead extending the ban to all privately-owned businesses. You can still smoke in your own home. For how long, though? I'd say about twenty years; the neo-prohibitionist movement is building momentum. (Come back in two decades and see if I'm right. If wrong, I'll buy you a fine Cuban cigar. Well, as long as that ban is lifted by then.)
...In 1985, the state adopted the Clean Indoor Air Act, banning smoking in retail outlets. In 1993, offices were added to the "No Smoking" list.... If we protect the health of office workers and retail employees from the dangers of secondhand smoke, why shouldn't waitresses and bartenders and clerks at bowling alleys and skating rinks enjoy the same protection?A better question: why is it the government's role to protect people from smoke, when they have the right to vote with their feet and their wallets? No one is forced to work or eat in a smoke-laden environment.
...As for the loss of individual rights, Nick Federici, spokesman for the American Lung Association of Washington, says, "Your right to swing your arms ends at my nose." In other words, smokers don't have the right to pollute nonsmokers' air....Social norms usually take care of this problem. By this chop logic, a nonsmoker could enter a private home and tell its occupant to douse the cigarillo. As slippery slope--and one The Olympian is ready to slide right down.
...There is a strong argument to be made in favor of protecting the health of hospitality employees and patrons. Think about it. Restaurants and bars are already heavily regulated by the county health department. Inspectors ensure that cooks and dishwashers have taken a class on proper foodhanding techniques. The regulators conduct regular and special inspections ensuring that those individuals handling food are wearing gloves, that dishes are properly sanitized and that food is prepared and stored in a safe manner.First off, those regulations mostly protect patrons, not employees, because undercooked or unsanitary food is an immediate health hazard, and the unsuspecting customer has no idea what's going on in the kitchen. Granted, smoking isn't terribly healthy, but do we need more ways to tie up law enforcement, county employees, and business owners? What about other policy options? Give businesses incentives to upgrade their ventilation systems, tax breaks for switching to smoke-free environments. There are dozens of choices, but do-gooders want to regulate, regulate, regulate.
Those precautions are all in place to protect workers and patrons. Improving air quality is simply another protection.
Federici predicts that smoking establishments will increase business once the ban is in place. "People will spend more money at those places if they don't have to walk through a cloud of carcinogens to get to the scrambled eggs."If consumers really cared, they'd already tell the businesses that they're losing patrons because of their smoggy environments. I'm sure I'm not the only who's walked out of an indoor forest fire.
...There are more than 225,000 hospitality employees in this state who must show up for work in a smoky environment every day. They deserve protection from secondhand smoke as much as office workers and retail employees....Interesting choice of phrase: "must show up." They have no choice but to work in a smoke-filled den. Instead of banding together to convince their management to change things, they call upon the power of Ma State to knock private businesses around.
Everyone has a right to breathe clean air. That's why voters should cast their ballots in support of Initiative 901 on Nov. 8.I'm all for upholding rights, but I wasn't aware of a "right to breathe clean air." Let's go as far as the slope will carry us. Let's shut down the fragrance aisle at Macys.* And ticket those who flatulate in the public square. And provide mandatory scrub-downs for the B.O. burdened. And monitor emissions from the mall's food court. And clamp down on halitosis. And ban everything on the road but the Honda FCX.
Smokers are doomed. I-901 will pass, and may even survive the courts. But not with my help.
*It's not as silly as it sounds. The Evergreen State College, always on the cultural vanguard, prohibits the use of deodorants, perfumes, or colognes in any of its buildings.
5 comments:
I've seen the right to smoke in restaurants compared to the right to urinate in restaurants. I'd like to your take on how the logic of those two laws differs.
Do we need a law to keep people from whizzing at Sizzler?
I would think that social norms and a business's own policy would be powerful enough. And really, what right-minded person would go to a restaurant where that sort of behavior took place?
Deodorants!? Well, I've already smeared that bylaw into little chunks that get caught in my shirt.
I'm undecided on this law, so I'll play devil's advocate:
Public health is important. So yes, there needs to be a law to keep people from whizzing at the Sizzler--even if they REALLY have to go. There also needs to be a law that prevents them from spraying anthrax around, a law requiring sneeze guards on the salad bar, requiring employees to wash their hands before returning to work, etc. Public health--public agencies. Or maybe I'm just a damn commie.
The "must show up" argument...where do you draw the line? I'll slippery-slope you back in the other direction. What about the laws protecting workers from very real dangers in very dangerous jobs? There was a time when people had to show up at those as well. "Must" is a reality for the desperate. Don't they deserve protections as well?
As a waffling libertarian who sometimes lets his sympathies cloud his judgment, I feel like the devil's advocate, at least in this circumstance.
I think both your objections could be subsumed under a "clear and present danger" test. E.coli represents an immediate danger; inhaling secondhand smoke doesn't.
Grilled steak is chock-full of cancer-causing agents. Yet the health department doesn't keep Sizzler from serving up charred sirloins. So long-term risk isn't a consistent criterion for "protection."
Even if we grant that secondhand smoke causes problems, we still have to overcome two other arguments:
1. That there may be a better way to compromise and solve the problem--tax breaks for new ventilation or for businesses that "go clean," for example.
2. That restaurant workers, especially in the present economy, are most definitely not forced to work at a smoking-allowed restaurant or bar.
(Urine, by the way, is sterile. If someone had an accident at your table, it would ruin your dinner, but wouldn't threaten your health.)
Post a Comment