Tobacco apartheid.....

[poltr1]

This year, we have two issues before us Ohio voters. One (Issue 4) is a constitutional amendment allowing smoking in designated public areas. The other (Issue 5) is a propsed change in the laws to allow businesses and jurisdictions to go non-smoking. While these may not be accurate summaries (better ones can be found here on the Project Vote Smart website), I do have to wonder if there is such a thing as smoker's rights anymore.

For the record, I'm a non-smoker. I only smoked two cigarettes in my life. They tasted awful. What a foul and expensive habit. I'd rather spend my cash on other vices, like food.

First of all, I dislike any issue that proposes to change the state constitution. It is an end-run around the law-making process; it circumvents the way things should be done. Second, Issue 4 is being funded by Big Tobacco. Third, any existing non-smoking ordinances would be rendered null and void if this passes. That's enough reason for me to vote "no" on 4.

I'm inclined to vote "yes" on 5, but not entirely convinced to do so just yet.

I still have to wonder. Do smokers have the right to light up whenever and wherever they want? What about the rights of non-smokers? Do non-smokers have the right to enjoy and breathe clean air? Do I want my office space and favorite restaurants polluted by cigarette smoke? (My initial answers to these questions are No, Hmm...., Yes, No.)

I remember when I used to bowl in a league, and my clothes would reek of tobacco smoke for hours after I came home. I'd rather not go back to those days.

And what about cigar and pipe smokers? They already can't light up in most places; they have to smoke outside or at home.

Comments

Here, have a grain of salt with this opinion

[athenawindsong.livejournal.com]

For me and the CDC, the bottom line is that smoking is a public health hazard.

To be quite blunt, that negates smoker rights in my eyes. If that makes me an elitist, so be it. I'm done arguing with a bunch of people who will use every excuse they can clutch at to put their smoke on my clothes, food, and in my lungs.

I'll be voting no on 4 and yes on 5. Smokers know what they can do with their cigarettes...

Three "Yes" Votes on Issue 5

[zorya-thinks.livejournal.com]

FWIW, my husband is a smoker and he is going to vote for Issue 5. He has tried to quit in the past but admits that smoking is a stress reliever for him. He says that Issue 5 is very similar to the smoking ban passed in Philadelphia except that one allows smoking in bars where food sales are 10% or less of the revenue.

While the supporters of Issue 4 accuse Issue 5 of being draconian, they gloss over the fact that Issue 4 would negate any local smoking regulations already in place which are more restrictive than the ones in Issue 4.

My husband, our 20 yr old son and I are all voting "no" on Issue 4 and "yes" on Issue 5. If I could convince my older son and his wife to go vote on Tuesday we would have 5 votes.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Having been heard to call smokers "suicidal, murdering drug-addicts" and "ecoterrorists" (and also having pitched my dad's cigs down the sewers a couple of times when young), my answer is that tobacco should be permitted only in a religious context.

It would free up enormous amounts of farmland, and save untold amounts of time and money and pollution, to outlaw tobacco. Do it.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Prohibition does not work. It did not work with alcohol, it's not working now with marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or meth, and it wouldn't work with tobacco. Any time you ban a product a lot of people will buy anyway, you create a huge source of revenue and power for organized crime and much worse problems for society as a whole than the banned activity itself. And, in general, having laws that a large chunk of the population will break if they think they can get away with it undermines people's respect for the law, their trust of law enforcement, and the rule of law in society.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with individuals smoking in their own, sealed, areas. In their homes, or their autos (though I do think that requiring full disclosure about whether a smoker owned the car is a good thing at resale time).

But public areas are subject to regulation for the public good, and in those spaces, I support a full ban on tobacco.

Similarly for marijuana, by the way -- with the addition of regulations about operating heavy machinery and other safety concerns under the influence, paralleling the ones for alcohol.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

It's legitimate to restrict an activity that has a real, scientifically measurable, physiological impact on others, and I'm fully in support of banning the use of tobacco in all public places. But I'm very sensitive to the rights of the minority to do something the majority doesn't like. Since I want very much to keep or win back the right to do some things that are threatened or already illegal, as long as I can do them without exposing unwilling others to real (as opposed to imagined) risk or harm, and since I despise hypocrisy above all other human failings, I'd better come down on the side of smokers' right to buy their poison and to indulge when they're alone.

Where it gets really ugly for me is when people want to smoke in a not fully public place, but if they do smoke they bar other people who would otherwise be there. A bar serving the public should be smoke free, but what about a private club? An open party at a private home? A closed party (where only the host's personal friends are invited) in a private home? I'm fairly comfortable saying that if it's an economic activity (the private club sells drinks or charges admission) smoking should be illegal. I'm pretty sure that smoking at the closed party should not be subject to legal sanction, although I'd like to see social pressure against it. But I'm really torn about the situation I was in recently, where a club meeting was hosted by a smoker, and the house was smoky enough I couldn't stay as long as I wanted to. If that is the norm for the club, it excludes people who are strongly affected from membership, but if smokers are not allowed to host meetings, they will feel excluded and the whole club loses out on the chance to see what the smokers do at their homes (which is part of the reason for having the meeting at a home instead of at a neutral public venue).

I just hope that the problem will disappear in another generation because people don't get started on the habit.

[zorya-thinks.livejournal.com]

Issue 5 exempts private clubs from the smoking ban. It also exempts businesses that are totally family owned and operated.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

To clarify: I'd rather outlaw tobacco. I'd CERTAINLY rather limit it severely; my initial answer of "religious context" was based on trying to create a fair context in existing law. My second answer was based on some further thought, and the idea that perhaps I'd been too limiting the first time. However, I do still think laws requiring full disclosure of space used for smokers would be good.

Sorry for any confusion

[jhayman.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't have a vote but Ontario already has a province wide ban on smoking in any public place with a roof (patios with umbrellas are deemed to have roofs).

We've had a couple of highly publicized cases of people, who worked in hospitality, whose health has been dramatically affected by smoking, despite that they never smoked at all. Workers Compensation got in on that one, so the restaurant and bar ban went through finally.

Believe me: state wide is better. It can always be augmented locally and added to at the state level.

I also agree with the public health issue. Not smoking does not impinge on anyone; smoking impinges on all the non-smokers.

Myself, I think that tobacco is just going to be fazed out over the next 50 years, except for its traditional use in Native/Indian ceremonies.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

If someone wants to pollute their own body with tobacco, it's their own business. They should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to pollute anyone else's body with it.