|
This is a tough issue since it is pitting personal freedom vs personal freedom.
Smokers should have the right to pursue the legal activity of smoking. It is legal and as long as they are of age, so there should be no problem. But non-smokers have the right to not have to have to smell it, inhale it, and generally be exposed to it if I don't want to. Now you have a question of who's rights are more important.
The key issue is that the act of smoking is not a discreet activity. You can have a smoking section in a bar/returant, but as we all know, unless there is some fancy air flow, or physical barriers, the smoke goes where ever it is blown. Furthermore, from personal experience, I really don't appreciate the cloud of smoke that I have to walk through when I am going into or out of the mall. There is always a crowd of people just outside the doors, and it is about impossible to avoid them.
As for bars and smoking... I have no problem with bars being a smoking area. I don't have to go to a bar, and it isn't a family oriented area. If a bar is too smoky, then it is my choice to stay or not. I think this is a good comprimise to having all resturants and public places being smoke free. I also know that there are several bars in the Seattle area that have gone smoke free voluntarily.
As I finish this rant, let me point out that we only still have legalizes tobacco in this country because it is a great monetary tool. On one front, it generates ass loads of tax revenues, and the sales fund a lot of politician's campaigns. Secondly, it is a great "opiate of the masses" The majority of smokers are of mid and lower incomes, it helps keep those groups happy and poor. The rich want to stay rich, and keeping the people with shitty incomes hooked on a drug that costs them thousands of year in direct costs and tens of thousands in indirect costs works fantastically.
In the end all I know is that it doesn't take a real intelligent person to realize that inhaling smoke of any kind, isn't good for your lungs.
|