ArsCompendium - Digital Scribes For The New Millenium » When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn’t a Ban

Users Online

1 User Online

When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn’t a Ban

Read more articles on Let Me Share With You and Law and Legal Issues.

October 26, 2006

About This Editor: Karen has enjoyed her many varied experiences in corporate business management, dance education, and preschool assistance. She hopes to write about these past lives-and more-from her home in Pittsburgh, PA, where she lives with her husband, daughter, and 3 cats.

422 Views

Submit this article to the following social bookmark news sites:

del.icio.us:When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn't a Ban

spurl:When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn't a Ban

wists:When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn't a Ban

reddit:When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn't a Ban

blogmarks:When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn't a Ban

smarking:When a Non-Smoking Ban Isn't a Ban

My city has instituted a new ban on smoking-well, sort of a ban, in certain places only. Does that make it any less of a ban?

At first, the idea was that it would include all facilities such as the workplace, bars and restaurants, and even hospital grounds. Now, after much hoopla and hollering, it appears that it will not be in effect in all such places. For example, bars that earn less than 10% of their incomes from food will not have a ban on smoking; new casinos under discussion will not be covered, and volunteer organizations and volunteer fire stations can allow smoking.

Hmmm…can someone explain the rationale behind this? I don’t mean the pat, political doubletalk found in the media, but the real reason?

OK, let’s say I decide to donate a little time to a volunteer organization. Now, if I’m giving up my lilmited available hours for free, I don’t want to be doing so in a cloud of others’ smoke. I will simply never return to help again. I’m just one person, but if others feel the same way (and I’m sure they do) they won’t return either, and volunteering will diminish. All of the good that volunteer organizations can accomplish will go down the drain because someone, for whatever reason, thinks that it’s ok for some volunteers to endanger other volunteers if they all happen to be working for some larger “common good”.

What about those bars and casinos? If you want people to generate city revenue by folks sticking nickels in slot machines, why not provide an environment that accommodates everyone? I guess the thought process is that if people have to go outside to smoke, that’s 5 more minutes that they’re not losing money. In this and the bar scenario, only a fraction of the population will thus be attracted to these places, which has to be reflected in their bottom lines sooner or later. Someone who smokes and is just looking for a place to do so isn’t going to run to the closest bar or casino that allows it, and a non-smoker looking for a quick nightcap or diversion will often pass as well-so who wins?

But it’s the fire stations that I’m really pondering. Wouldn’t you think that if there’s anyplace that wouldn’t want lit matches or lit cigarettes, it’d be a place existing solely for the purpose of putting out fires? And don’t firefighters subject themselves to enough smoke already?

I’m sure there’s a ton of arguments that have been pushed around about the “why’s” of these decisions, but, when you get right down to it, none of them can make as much sense as, well, common sense…