From the Tribune
To those still hoping to light up in some Chicago restaurants, one paragraph in the new smoking ban is a breath of fresh air. To those who oppose public smoking in all its forms, it is a loophole that threatens to prevent a meaningful smoking ban altogether.
Tucked away near the bottom of Chicago's new anti-smoking ordinance is a thick paragraph permitting smoking in public places where air filters or other devices can render the air inside as pristine as it is outside.
"If the air quality inside your smoking area is no worse than outside, you can smoke, you're exempt," said Illinois Restaurant Association President Colleen McShane, whose group had fought against a total ban. "I don't see a door completely closed."
Anti-smoking proponents view the provision as a Trojan horse.
"We are aware of that as a potential problem," said Kevin Tynan, deputy executive director of the American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago. "We are going to be looking at any restaurant that asks for an exemption on that basis."
From New York to San Francisco, cities have banned smoking in restaurants, bars and other public buildings. But in no other major city is there an exemption for establishments with air purification devices that bring secondhand smoke to a level comparable "to ambient outdoor air surrounding the establishment."
I don't see the problem with this. I've always maintained that we should be more concerned with all the toxic sludge automobiles spew into the air. I have a friend who worked in bars for years and she was always sick. She argues for the ban for the health of the workers - kind of like work safety laws that apply to any other industry. Well, if air filters bring the air to levels comparable to what's outside - what's the problem? I mean, our air is safe to breathe right??? I think this is a genius way to shift the focus to air quality. I mean, if making the air inside the same quality of outside still isn't good enough, then what does that say about the air quality outside?
It also gives businesses a choice rather than shoving something down their throat. Ban smoking, or spend $$$ on air filtration systems. If a business wants and can afford to do the latter - what's the problem?
Personally, I'd support a ban on people who take public transportation and insist on spilling 1/2 a bottle of cologne on themselves before they leave the house. People - it doesn't smell good - just stop.
6 comments:
I've always seen smoking bans imposed on private property owners, as an infringement of rights.
If business owners feel that they're losing business by allowing smoking, they would go smoke free in a minute! I've seen too many restaurants go tits up over smoke free laws.
I do believe that all PUBLICLY funded buildings should be smoke free. Let privately owned businesses make the decision based on their customer's preferences.
California is doing just fine with the smoking ban. I think that if restaurants hire people that don't smoke then the environment needs to be smoke free. I lean towards respecting the rights of people who want healthy lungs vs. the people who don't care.
I want healthy lungs, but I'm more worried about what I breathe outside (as I spend more time outside than in bars) - but no one seems to care about MY lungs... that's my point.
I agree with tshsmom but if any wants to push this it's going to business as usual. Someone (I think the Chicago Tribune - and don't believe if you want since I can't find the source article) did a study on air quality a couple of years back and found that standing waiting for a CTA bus (typically 10 to 15 minutes) by a standard Chicago street resulted in the ingestion of an equivalent of pollutants one would get from a cigarette.
I'm a smoker and I kinda wish this would go into effect as whenever I'm in NYC or LA I find I smoke a lot less. But on the other hand, and this hand weighs more, I don't want the government legislating my choices. If a business wants to go smoke free on their own let them.
In parts of Europe they solve the problem for employees by taking a reverse direction... you can't smoke at the bar but you can smoke in a designated smoking section. Which in many places is everywhere but the bar. Anyway, it helps the employees.
I have not been a smoker for over 5 years, but I have to agree with tshsmom. I don't believe that the government should be allowed to dictate to private business who they cater to. So long as they are not violating anyones constitutional rights.
No one has to work at or patronize a bar or restaurant if they don't want to.
Here in South Bend, we have exactly zero bars or non fast food restaurants that are smoke free. The reason: Every smoke free bar or restaurant that has opened here has gone belly up in less than two years! Or as they apparently say in Minnesota, tits up!
And if the standard is the quality of outside air, in the city, I'd rather be ina smoky bar!
Here we go on the accent thing again, GWB! ;)
Post a Comment