Speaking of Tobacco
Two smoking bills in the CO, one would the use of a legal product in designated areas of nursing homes, the other would allow local taverns to pay $500 a year to exempt them from the smoking ban.
As I said in my recent abortion post, I'm against these "soft" bans. Smoking is legal if you're over the age of 18. Change that, or leave it alone. I don't smoke, never have, and back in the day, I didn't frequent places that allowed smoking. You can choose to smoke, you can choose to allow/disallow smoking in your establishment, and I can choose my way. So while I do believe that smoking is an unhealthy decision, I also think you're free to make it. We were all getting along just fine, we don't need the government to get involved, especially when it says you may consume this legal product in a one square foot area of the state.
But what's striking about these bills is that legislators are playing God (I know that that sounds strong, but if you believe that these legislators are innocently acting on a good intention of saving people, then they are clearly deciding who gets "saved" with this mishmash of banned areas), and their choices are interesting.
Lets go through the exemptions.
Apparently casino employees aren't as important to keep alive as restaurant employees. Not exactly sure why the CO legislature feels that casino employees should die slow cancer related deaths, maybe all the casino employees pants the Legislature back in Middle School.
It also looks like nursing home employees deserve a half-death by cancer. Since smoking is only allowed in well ventilated places, I assume that the Legislature feels that this decreases but does not eliminate nurses from the pale stench of their own death. Or maybe they figure that working in a nursing home they're used to it.
Overall, says Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver,
"The bill we passed last year is uneven, but we need to spend our time bringing establishments into the act rather than exempting them."Or maybe, his time is best spent letting Tavern owners decide how best to run their business.
However,Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, clearly a H-Blog reader counters with a near flawless argument
This really shows the unintended consequences of the bills we run up here, I opposed the smoking ban. As long as tobacco is a legal substance, we have no business of legislating it out of existence."
Genius
Posts
4 comments:
Speaking of tobacco . . .
"An estimated 80 percent of adults believe that children are more likely to smoke if they watch films that have characters who smoke, according to a report from the Mississippi State University's Social Science Research Center and The American Medical Association Alliance . . . .
The survey also found that 70 percent of adults believe that movies with smoking should be rated "R," unless the film clearly shows the dangers of smoking or it portrays the tobacco use of a historical figure.
About two-thirds of adults were also found to support anti-smoking advertising shown before films that feature characters who smoke. A majority of parents and adults did not approve of tobacco logos or brand identifications appearing in films, according to the survey."
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/16697462.htm
The right to smoke is one thing, ther is howver, a legitimate case to made for protecting employees. It is one thing to socially avoid establishes that allowed smoking but without a smoking ban, barteneders and waitresses will be in unhealthy environments in order to make a living.
People should have a right to chose the amount of risk they want to assume. There is no one whose employment options are limited to waiting tables. If you know an establishment allows smoking and you are concerned about your health then you probably shouldn't put in an application.
The health consequences of second hand smoke are still in the "prove it" stage. Most of the research I've seen comes in the form of studies that looked at the effects of smoking on spouses of life long big time smokers. I haven't seen anything showing a linkage between real health consequence and say, working in a bar. I'm not saying such a study doesn't exist, rather that I haven't come across it.
While I fully buy into the idea that smoking increases a smokers chances of premature death, I'm not yet convinced that the same link exists for second-hand smoke.
I would rather chase real problems legislatively than imagined ones.
Post a Comment