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

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.