San Antonio snuffs out indoor smoking
What we will be left with in restaurants, at least in the general seating area, is a cleaner environment to eat.
- San Antonio Mayor Ed Garza
Little by little, bit by bit, cigarette smoking is being turned into the dirty, nasty, unhealthy habit that it in fact is. Of course, this is easy for me to say as a non-smoker, and some of my smoking friends will take me to task for this, but I still believe that your right to smoke ends at my right to breathe clean air.
Several large cities (most notably New York) are beginning to recognize the health risk posed by second-hand smoke. San Antonio is the latest to hop on the band wagon, although the city's new ordinance can best be described as "watered down". Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction.
The City Council overwhelmingly approved a package of city code revisions that clarify an existing ban on smoking in enclosed public places, including office buildings and other workplaces. However, a key definition was accidently omitted from the ordinance, forcing the council to schedule another vote for Thursday.
During months of negotiations, the new rules evolved from a proposed ban on all smoking in eateries to a watered-down compromise allowing enclosed smoking sections in restaurants. Disappointed anti-smoking forces likened the new rules to creating urination sections in swimming pools.
Smoking also will be permitted in San Antonio's bingo and billiards halls, retail tobacco stores, manufacturing facilities, and comedy clubs. Efforts to exclude children under 18 from those sites were turned back when a last-minute change authorized parents to take their kids into enclosed smoking areas.
Even with some major shortcomings and uncertain fees and expenses for businesses, something is better than nothing in this case, insisted Mayor Ed Garza, noting that the tough quest for change had been under way since 1997. Garza initially advocated an absolute ban but gradually relented under pressure from business groups, smokers, civil libertarians and a changing cast of council members.
I have no problem with people who want to smoke. All I'm saying is that I shouldn't have to be exposed to their second-hand smoke. Now, I realize that you civil libertarians out there will be calling for my head (What about the rights of smokers? What about alcohol? Yadayadayada....). I realize that my argument might seem a crappy, almost unsupportable one- except for the moral and public health aspects at work here. If I want to have dinner with my family, or even if I want to go to a bar with some friends, I should not have to be exposed to an airborne carcinogen simply because someone feels the need to feed their addiction. If you choose to accept the health risks, that's fine. I shouldn't have to simply because I'm in a bar or a restaurant.
Again, your right to smoke ends with my right to breathe clean air. It's a pretty simple equation. I applaud San Antonio for at least taking a step in the right direction.
