TheGirl wants to talk about the smoking ban in Chicago. Why does it work in NY and LA but people seem to think it won't work here? I am all for it, but my buddy Nate fires up the occasional paliament light when he is out sampling the delicious ales and meades of Chicago, so that's one person that may be fighting this thing.
What do you think? My argument that it would rock-
1) smoke+food= gross.
2) your clothes don't reek the next day, thereby saving oh-so-important laundry quarters.
3) girls' hair the morning after a night on the town smells absolutely nauseating (TheGirl's contribution).
4) cigarette smoke irritates the eyes, and non-smoking bar employees can get bad diseases, like cancer and stuff.
Let's hear it for smoking bans. Weigh in if you please.
2 comments:
I don't think that this is a matter of government intrusion on people's lives so much as it is a health issue. Was the government intruding when it told people to stop insulating with asbestos? of course not.
and the argument is mainly for health reasons (although probably not for the smoker's health). as for-
people's homes- of course that wouldn't be considered a place where smoke would affect other people. that's ridiculous. lots of people don't want to live around guns, but we still let people have them in their homes because it is a private residence. isn't the line you draw precisely at places that are open to the public? it seems like an easy distinction.
cars- isn't this the same argument as homes? of course smoke would affect passengers, but like homes, cars are not open to the public, and therefore you cannot legislate the rules that take place within them.
school bathrooms- maybe i'm crazy, but i'm pretty sure that smoking in school bathrooms is already banned, and has been for many, many years.
there probably is a colorable argument that bars and restaurants carry the understood conditions that you will subject to noise, crowds, and smoke when you use them. but is that the same thing as not being able to enjoy a public establishment for food and drink without inhaling smoke? what if you subjected to something that caused cancer at a similar rate, over a similar period of time, at all restaurants and bars?
i think that the point is that smokers choose to take the risks associated with smoking, and therefore should bear the consequences. non-smokers don't, so why should they bear the consequences of smoking just because they like bars? why should smokers get to impose their health risks on others? i imagine it's because bar owners like the money that smokers bring in, and there aren't enough non-smokers that stay away from bars just to avoid smoke. but smoke-free bars would kick ass, in my opinion.
Post a Comment