©
Imagine you check into a hotel and request a no-smoking room, but end up in a suite where the drapes, bedspread and carpet all stink of tobacco. You call the front desk to complain and the manager asks, "Are you smoking now?" When you assure him you are not, he replies, "Well, then, it's a no-smoking room!"
Chances are you won't be staying at that hotel again.
Toxic particles from cigarette smoke have a nasty habit of sticking around long after the last butt has been snuffed out. That's why hotels have designated smoking rooms and why some major chains like Westin and Marriott have started banning cigarettes entirely.
Those lessons weigh heavily against a proposal being considered by high-ranking state officials that would ban smoking in bars and restaurants, but only until 10 p.m.
Health Secretary Marilyn Tavenner's plan aims to break a logjam blocking a smoking ban in public places.
Tavenner's resolve is more admirable than her proposal, a half-measure that fails to achieve the benefits of a true smoking ban.
Giving bars a little statutory breathing room has the opposite effect on their workers. Patrons can choose which bars and restaurants they go to and when, but hospitality employees take what jobs are available and work the hours their bosses dictate. A smoking ban with time limits won't protect them from the ill effects of secondhand smoke.
It's no coincidence that many customers view drinking and smoking as inextricably linked. Nicotine not only helps counter the narcotic effects of alcohol, but studies suggest it actually slows the absorption of alcohol into the blood. While that may make bar patrons less drunk, the reality is the cigarette encourages them to drink more than they should by choking off the body's warning signals.
Bar owners might view that side effect as valuable to their bottom line, but state officials have no reason to encourage unhealthy behavior in any form. Instead, they have an obligation to support policies that increase public health and protect nonsmokers from harm. The best way to meet that goal is a smoking ban in all bars and restaurants with no exceptions.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
jasonwebb1969, I have
jasonwebb1969,
I have changed my "name" from EDF14692 to solus ipse but in answer to your assumption that I am a smoker, you are wrong. I was a smoker but quit over 10 years ago. Smoking is a filthy habit and not one that I appreciate ever having - HOWEVER, why is it the government's business to tell me what is healthy for me? I don't tell you what you can eat (by the way, are you fat? Maybe we should take away your french fries!) and if you will reread my post, you will see that I was merely refuting the logical inconsistency of the paper's editorial. Why must we assume these folks can't get another job where there is no smoking allowed? Are they hopelessly locked into the hospitality trade? Think before you put pen to paper - you might look like a fool otherwise.
twomiler2
If you read the actual reports and documentation, rather than the press releases, you will find that my comments reflect the actual science.
Of course the average "journalist" is not going to take the time to read the 700+ page SG report and so just reads the press release which is in direct contradiction to the actual findings of the report.
Come back to me after you have read the SG's report and then we'll talk.
The Surgeon General
& the rest of the medical profession disagree with you Gabrielle.
If....
If the government is really serious about stopping smoking then they need to ban tobacco products entirely. The problem is that government is making too much money taxing cigarettes. Unlike marijuana, tobacco cannot be grown in a pot on your windowsill. There would not be a tremendous black-market free-for-all for tobacco. It takes tremendous amounts of land to farm tobacco, time in curing, and present day processing is beyond the home producer. So all you do-gooders that want to ban the practice of smoking should really be aiming your efforts at banning the products. Just remember, the government will need to find that tax revenue somewhere else. Maybe the next tax will be on your bottled water, after all those plastic bottles are filling our landfill and plastics take huge amounts of petro to produce. Maybe the next tax and attack will be on junk food and fast food. Being a small person I will gladly jump on that bandwagon. There are way more fat people than smokers....so go at it government, its free money just waiting to jump in your pockets.
Too funny!
The VP claims: ""but state officials have no reason to encourage unhealthy behavior in any form."" What a laugh, these are the same state officials that operate liquor stores and license the sale of alcohol elsewhere, and they are not supposed to encourage healthy behavior????
Telling a lie loud enough and often enough does not make it the truth, no matter how much the VP wishes folks to believe otherwise. Smoke from any source can be annoying when it is not properly ventilated, but tobacco smoke is no different than the smoke of any other combustible insofar as being dangerous, and in fact poses less danger than other types of emissions.
Jason
I'm a nonsmoker and agree with him. Freedom of choice for business owners, employees and patrons. It's as simple as that.
edf14692
Is obviously a smoker, and like most people addicted to a substance becomes extremely defensive when their addiction and their ability to freely induldge in their addiction is threatened in any way. Until the nicotine addicts understand that the majority of the population do not care for being a part of their practice of self-destruction, they will continue to push their toxic smoke and chemicals into our faces with second-hand smoke in an attempt to intimidate us into silence. Isn't this supposed to be the 21st Century?
Smoking
If you don't want to go into a bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed, don't go. If the worker objects to working around a smoking environment, they certainly can find plenty of restaurants around here that do not allow smoking at all. Your statement “but hospitality employees take what jobs are available and work the hours their bosses dictate” is disingenuous at best and does not speak to the truth. It merely is a prop in your anti-smoking tirade. Who gave you the right to determine what others should be allowed to do. Pretty presumptuous of you, I think.