First of all, yippeee!
Now that I have that out of my system... Regardless of your stance on this issue, I truly believe that the following words present the strongest argument in favor of the Smoke Free ordinance...
"the right of nonsmokers to breathe smokefree air, and the need to breathe smokefree air far outweighs the desire to smoke."
A copy of the ordinance can be viewed at the City of Laramie's web site @
http://www.cityoflaramie.com/cityhall/council/documents/Final-Smoking-Ordinance-Passed-0907041.pdf
I welcome anyone else's opinion on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Ahhhhh! Our patriotic duty to provide clean, free air! :-) Su M
I still think that the ordinance went to far by cutting the smoke out of the bar scene. I completely support a smokeless environment for restaurants and many other public spaces, but bars should be able to make that call by themselves. It would be nice if a place like the Buckhorn or many of the local neighborhood bars could keep their smoking status by taxing them higher and making them have a permit or something. Many bars chose to be smokefree before the ordinance, and that was their choice.
Smoking can be a freedom as well. And kicking out anyone who smokes in a place is just mean. Maybe there should be some totally smoke-full establishments for certain people to go if they want to be able to smoke indoors instead of outside.
maybe?
I think your idea of taxing certain bars is intriguing. However, I strongly believe that it all boils down to "the right of nonsmokers to breathe smokefree air, and the need to breathe smokefree air far outweighs the desire to smoke".
Nowhere in the constitution does it state that we have the right to smoke or be addicted to a substance. Nowhere. So this common argument that I hear many voice, that "this ban is infringinging on my rights" is unfounded and incorrect.
My concern is also for the employees who have to work there, not just the patrons. While it can be argued that they can choose not to work in an establishment that allows smoking, the reality is that we're in a college town, and jobs can be scarce. Bartending can be decent money! As for a higher tax, I think it sets up an unbalanced system without a fair standard. As the ordinance approaches things from a health perspective, allowing people to pay a "sin tax" to keep smoking isn't in line with the ordinance's goals.
What if I were to open up a cigar and pipe club, that had a small bar and some bistro-esque food served with wine and live jazz... and it was understood that you go to this place to smoke, period. How could I as a potential business owner embark on a cigar/pipe club? What if you had to obtain membership to even enter?
The ordinance even closed the possibility of smoking at private establishments. Are we going to have a prohibition on smoking altogether? Smoking tobacco could become just as illegal as say marijuana or other drugs...
Car fumes are carcinogenic too... lets have an ordinance against motorized vehilcles. And furnaces in houses... and campfires... and peanut butter... and margarine. Let's just all walk around in space suits... maybe then we'll be safe.
I think that smokers should be able to smoke inside. And that place would be a smoking establishment. Where you had to be a smoker or sign a waiver to work there. People should have the choice to smoke, and not just outside... and people who go to the bars just know that smoke is going to be present. Now maybe the city can allow one location, that is understood as a smoking place. A place that smoke will fill the air and people who smoke can smoke there.
so there... my rant was longer than yours.... HA!
No, my life will not be dramatically changed if smoking remains an outside thing. I just thought that the ordinance went too far with including bars, but I am able to see both sides.
But just imagine what is going to happen a place like the Buckhorn Bar... it just seems weird to think that all of the bikers and drunkards can't smoke a cig with their beers... but it isn't that big of an issue. It just seems wrong.
didn't anyone see joe hageman's ad in the boomerang? we all knew the drunk smokers would be out on the sidewalk! WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS? if i wanted a drink without smoke, i could have gone to the ranger or lovejoy's. fortunately, i moved to the carribean, where you can still walk around the auto parts store with a beer in your hand.
didn't anyone see joe hageman's ad in the boomerang? we all knew the drunk smokers would be out on the sidewalk! WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS? if i wanted a drink without smoke, i could have gone to the ranger or lovejoy's. fortunately, i moved to the carribean, where you can still walk around the auto parts store with a beer in your hand.
The ordinance didn't go too far at all. Bars are workplaces. If the ordinance did not make them smoke-free, it would in effect be saying that workers at bars did not deserve the same rights as other workers merely because they were working in a bar, which is nonsensical. In fact, a Superior Court in Rhode Island recently threw out exceptions to the state's clean indoor air law because it ruled them to be "arbitrary" and "irrational." The law clearly stated that its intent was to protect workers and the public, and to exempt some places purely for political reasons departed from that purpose. Good for the judge for clearing away the smoke screen! You can find more about the case at this link.
I really liked the ad showing the Buckhorn, by the way, because it showed "Smokin' Joe" Hageman stretched out on the sidewalk like a derelict. ("Yes, little Billy, that's your City Council person, laying on the sidewalk drunk and addicted to nicotine. Someday you can be like that.") Talk about showing a politician's true colors! During City Council meetings the man calls for a break and dashes out the door to get his "fix." It's embarrassing and a terrible example for our kids. I do not think that if the public knew what he was like they would have elected him.
The scene in downtown Laramie is much improved. Yes, there are some smokers outside, but they don't clog the sidwalks. A cigarette takes only 12 minutes to burn (one of the chemical additives in cigarettes is an accelerant to make sure they don't last longer) and most smokers don't smoke the whole thing. They just crave the initial hit or two of the drug. There hasn't been a big problem with butts on the street (I haven't even seen Hageman's butt on the street despite that picture) and the bars are fuller than ever.
Despite the Petro truck stop's constant whining about the ordinance I couldn't find a seat when I met friends for brunch this morning, it was so full. The section that said "Drivers Only" was just as packed. They are not losing business! The smoking ordinance has been wonderful for Laramie. Mr. Bjorn is right: we all have a very basic right to breathe without being poisoned.
Post a Comment