![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tobacco apartheid.....
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.
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.
no subject
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.