It is not news to anyone that smoking cigarettes is deadly. Back in August, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg put forth legislation to ban smoking in all public areas and workplaces. At a recent gubernatorial debate, the issue was raised to H. Carl McCall, who not only supported implementing the plan on a statewide level but also pressured Gov. George Pataki into agreement. The current legislation would protect the health of non-smokers, but takes matters too far and does not consider the solutions that are already available.
When the current governor endorsed such a bill, it seemed like the 62 counties of New York would follow the steps of Bloomberg and attempt to ban smoking in public places. Lobbyists for Philip Morris are facing off against the American Cancer Society, as the health of Americans is pitted against their lifestyle choices. Philip Morris appears to be protecting individual freedoms, while the ACS is demanding enforcement of the right to a smoke-free workplace.
For years, restaurants have enforced non-smoking sections by partitioning off areas for the sole use of smokers. Thus, diners who do not wish to inhale smoke while eating have been able to enjoy their meals comfortably. The problem with the new proposal, however, arises with bars. If eating establishments have fewer than 30 seats, smoking is allowed, and bars have thrived on this exception. If a full-scale ban is in place, bars will not only lose support, but popularity as well.
The current solution for restaurants can be extended in bars, benefiting all parties. If bar owners take the time to create sections of their bar where people can smoke, smoking customers will be able to enjoy their alcohol with cigarettes, while allowing non-smokers sufficient room free of carcinogens. The safety of workers is the main point of the legislation, but those who work in a bar have chosen to put their safety at risk. All jobs have necessary hazards, and second-hand smoke is a key danger inherent to bartending.
Plans like this are already in place in Boston and Los Angeles, and have been received with mixed support. The issue is a divisive one. Non-smokers love the new regulations, as they can fully enjoy all bars and eating establishments without having to worry about inhaling second-hand smoke. Smokers are irritated that they are being told where they can and cannot do something they have paid for.
An issue that is, perhaps, less obvious is that of respect. All too often, bar patrons will get smoke blown in their faces or come far too close to a brush with a lighted cigarette, waved around carelessly in the smoker's drunken revelry. For each person that smokes, there are people that cannot stand the smell or feel or taste. If smokers respect the personal space of non-smokers and bar employees, the legislation will be slightly less necessary.
The legislation, while ostensibly in the benefit of non-smokers, fails to take into account the actual needs of society. Provided smokers take care with their cigarettes, and measures such as smoking sections in bars are put into place, there is no need for a total ban against smoking in public places.
