| HOME | New Additions | NEWS ITEMS | ARTICLES | LETTERS FROM THE PAPERS -and DoH, MPs & Press Emails | ODDS & SODS | LINKS | CONTACT |
July 25, 2006
Anchorage’s hot ticket debate of the summer has been the city Assembly’s proposal to ban smoking in all public buildings – a measure aimed at bars and bingo halls, the only establishments where smoking is currently legal.
The discussion comes on the heels of a June report from the office of the U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona reiterating the dangers of secondhand smoke.
In a society that grows increasingly, even obsessively, safety and health conscious every year, the fact that smoking is still permitted in some buildings might come as a surprise. With this proposal, Anchorage is simply jumping on a bandwagon that has been gaining momentum for years. Many major U.S. cities have banned smoking in public buildings including El Paso in 2002, New York City in 2003, and more recently, Washington D.C. Hawaii implemented a statewide ban July 12.
Opponents of the ban in Anchorage say it is not the job of the Assembly to force the citizens of Anchorage to be healthy. Pro-banners counter that they seek to protect the lives of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke.
The debate grows more complex the more it is examined.
Cigarettes are an addictive and lethal drug, much more deadly than many narcotics. Yet they remain legal thanks to the powerful lobbying efforts and campaign contributions of the tobacco industry.
Smoking is also the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S. according to Carmona. We all know the myriad health problems associated with cigarette smoke – heart disease, lung problems and cancers of every kind. Despite the urgency of the recent report, its findings are not news to anyone.
Nonsmokers would have to have rocks in their heads to think that a bar is healthy environment for either work or play. In fact, bars have a history of being an outlet for unhealthy behaviors: casual sex, drinking, fighting, gambling, – smoking is the least of these.
Yet, every person who chooses to work in a bar has to decide whether the financial benefits (more and larger tips, for example) outweigh the possible health risks. Every person who works in a bar has already made this decision. Coal miners, crabbers and firefighters have to consider the possible risks associated with their respective professions; bartenders and servers should also. Restaurants are plentiful in Anchorage. They are lots of places for a server to work.
Of course, many restaurants that target a “family” clientele – such as T.G.I. Fridays and Bostons – also have bars with smoking sections. Carmona argues that such establishments pose a risk to nonsmoking patrons and serving staff, even if they remain in separate nonsmoking sections.
Many bar owners are asking for a transition period to allow them time to set aside money for the expected dip in income once the ban has gone into effect. But the logic is inconsistent with other evidence.
According to a February 2004 report by the Center for Disease Control, “No decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso, Texas, after the city’s smoking ban was implemented on January 2, 2002. These findings are consistent with the results of studies in other municipalities that determined smoke-free indoor air ordinances had no effect on restaurant revenues … Sales of alcoholic beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoking ban.”
Given that America’s shift from glorifying and condoning smoking to stigmatizing it has been both recent and sudden (the Social Sciences Building’s built-in ashtray trashcans attest to this fact), it isn’t surprising that a lot of smokers feel vilified.
CNN.com reported last month that Carmona urged Americans to, “stay away from smokers.”
Smokers are quick to defend their right to smoke as a “pursuit of happiness.” Nonsmokers maintain that right should not infringe on their right to be healthy. The subtext debate is really about where we, as a society, draw the line between state and self, personal and private, individual rights and social obligation.
The sheer volume of people who showed up to Anchorage’s July 11 assembly meeting proves one thing and one thing only; Whether or not smoking is permitted in bars matters a lot to a lot of people. This decision should not be made by the Assembly, it should be made by the voters. Every single Anchorage voter should have the right to weigh in on the ban.
Posted 08/08/2006
At the outset I state I am a smoker but do not promote
smoking.
Tobacco remains legal because governments enjoy the tax revenue
and people actually enjoy smoking.
Carmona simply stretched the weak statistics even further. It's
like saying that if you don't want to die from a car crash don't
go near the road.
I've obviously been going to the wrong bars. The ones I go to are
central to healthy community activity, camaraderie and
friendship. They are meeting places where strangers and visitors
can introduce themselves to the town but most important they are
places where adult behaviour can be kept in an adult space out of
sight of the young. Bans move smoking into public and unregulated
places.
Carmona, like all anti-smoking devotees takes every opportunity
to stretch the weak statistics. Can he tell you exactly how many
people per 100,000 are likely to die from that drifting
carcinogen? Is it even as many as 1?
Of course bar owners need time. The logic IS consistent with
evidence.The studies mentioned are usually those from ‘official'
bodies ensuring the statistics support their own ban.
Is this really America's shift or simply publicity from a massive
campaign by an organized and highly funded minority some of who
are well paid to work full-time attacking that which they hate.
Most Americans simply get on with their job of supporting
themselves, their families and their country. It would be great
if all of us were well paid to attack what we hate.
Far more justified than 'staying away from smokers' might be a
call to keep away from ‘experts' such as Carmona. How often
do we hear of damage or even death through misdiagnosis by the
medical profession?
Do nonsmokers have to be supported by anti-smoking groups? They
can make up their own minds. Not all nonsmokers are smoke-haters
and they have the abilty to choose where they go. None have ever
been engulfed by a marauding bar. If anti-smoking is so popular,
anti-smokers would invest in their own venues rather than
assuming control of other people's investments.
Even a public vote can be undemocratic. The result of a vote
should not exclude or isolate a large section of society. That is
dictatorship by the majority. A civilized society accommodates
all its citizens and a vote should reflect this by rejecting the
divisive venom of the anti-smoking/smoker lobby.
Legislate for choice, encourage a non-smoking culture but do not
increase divisions in society. Promote tolerence and community -
the world is a sad enough place already.
Niel e Dunn
Nearlydone@tiscali.co.uk
teacher
UK