Smoking ban eyed for Houston: Councilwoman researches a plan to target eateries and workplaces
When I read this, I had only one quick reaction: YESSS!!!!!! Mayor Bill White may be less sanguine about the possibilities of an all-out smoking ban in public places, but this is an idea that I think bears some serious consideration. After all, why should the health of the majority be placed in jeopardy simply because a minority decides they want to pollute their lungs and the lungs of those around them?
Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the only physician on the City Council, is studying smoking ordinances in other cities with an eye toward proposing what would be Houston's first outright ban on smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants.
"The ban would be on smoking in public places — anyplace that conducts business and where people would gather, not in residences," she said. "Smoking and secondhand smoke are dangerous for all Houstonians, and that's why we are looking to move forward."....
Houston is the only major metropolitan area in Texas that has not banned smoking in either eateries or workplaces, although many Houston businesses voluntarily have limited smoking.
The city does ban smoking in elevators, restrooms and certain retail establishments; requires workplaces to accommodate nonsmoking employees; and sets special ventilation standards for places that allow smoking.
El Paso barred cigarettes inside all workplaces, restaurants, and bars in 2002; Dallas followed with a restaurant ban in 2003; San Antonio and Austin banned workplace smoking earlier this year.
If Houston hopes to attract business, investment, and people, it is going to have to sell a high quality of life. Let's face it; no non-smoker wants to be assaulted with someone else's second-hand smoke. It's one thing if you want to smoke; it's something altogether different. Given that we all have to breath the same air, the non-smoking majority should have the right to legislate their right to clean air onto the statue books.
Yes, I am aware of the "holes" in this argument (I live with three debaters, after all), and while I don't have a ready philosophical or legal solution, do we really want to risk doing nothing? I suppose we are risking the marginalization of smokers, but my argument is not with the people. It's with the second-hand smoke produced by their addiction. Until smokers can find a way to indulge their addiction without adversely impacting the health of those around them, non-smokers must insist on their right to clean air. If this attitude angers smokers, then so be it. It's nothing personal; it's about the health of the majority.
