Massachusetts indoor smoking ban begins
The war against tobacco is not going to be won with one sweep of a broad brush. No, it's going to be won with slow, inexorable progress- small victories here, there, and everywhere. The latest win is in Massachusetts.
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A statewide indoor smoking ban covering work places, bars and restaurants went into effect Monday throughout Massachusetts, and public health officials said they plan to aggressively pursue violators.
Smokers face a $100 fine for each violation, and business owners who allow smoking in their establishment face fines of up to $300.
Ian Lang, chief of staff of the state Department of Public Health, said he expected 95 percent voluntary compliance by Labor Day.
"We consider this a tremendous victory for the health of workers," Lang said of the new law. "This is a tremendous step forward."
Massachusetts joins five other states -- New York, Connecticut, Maine, Delaware and California -- with statewide bans.
The ban, enacted by the Legislature earlier this year and signed June 18 by Gov. Mitt Romney, prohibits smoking in all workplaces, restaurants and bars in the state. Private clubs and cigar bars are exempt.
This is an old argument for me, and one that has drawn fire from some, but I still stand by it. My right to breathe clean air trumps your "right" to smoke. If I cannot breathe clean air because you are indulging your smoking addiction, that needs to change- now.
I applaud Massachusetts for taking a stand for public health. In the end, we will all benefit- with cleaner air, lower insurance rates, and a better quality of life. Realistically, who can make an argument against that?
For those of you who still smoke, I mean no disrespect, but the fact of the matter is that public policy is slowly but surely squeezing you. By providing maximum disincentives to smoke, public health officials and politicians are working for the greater public good. At some point in the future, smoking as an activity will be so marginalized and heavily taxed so as to be a difficult and prohibitively expensive undertaking. This is not about oppressing smokers; it's about protecting the public health. Yes, you might argue, what about alcohol? fatty foods? stress in the workplace? Indeed, those are all important issues, but none of them have the adverse secondary impact that cigarette smoke does.
Life is full of inconsistencies, and it's not always fair, but sometimes protecting the greater public good is worth it. I believe that providing maximum disincentives for smokers is definitely worth it. In the long run, we will ALL be healthier for it.
