Before anyone (that means you, Adam) points out the holes in my argument, let me just state for the record that I am well aware that my case is hardly watertight. My opposition to anything tobacco-related is largely emotional. I know that, but it what it is.
I believe strongly that, while it may fall short of a perfect solution, Houston Mayor Bill White is taking a huge step in the right direction.
Houston restaurants may soon be smoke-free.
Mayor Bill White announced Wednesday that he is drafting an ordinance that would ban smoking in restaurants, but not in bars.
“I have been listening to people who want a ban everywhere and the people who don’t want to lose their market,” White said. “I’m trying to find the middle ground.”
White said his proposal would be phased in over two years to try to minimize any negative impact on restaurants.
Under Houston’s current ordinance, restaurants and other public buildings are allowed to have smoking areas if they are properly ventilated. Smoking is banned within 25 feet of entrances to public buildings.
White said that under his proposal, any restaurants with bars in their establishments would be allowed to maintain smoking areas in the bars, as long as there is “real separation” from the dining areas.
The mayor said he didn’t have details of his proposal because his legal department is looking into the matter. He said he hopes to have a proposed ordinance prepared in time for City Council to vote on it before the end of the year.
I would have been happier were White’s proposition to call for the banning of smoking in all public establishments. From a public health standpoint, it’s the only move that truly makes sense. Nonetheless, I applaud White for taking this first step. Rome may not have been built in a day, and marginalizing smoking is something that likewise will take time.
Should I choose to go to a restaurant or bar, I should not have to endure a blue cloud of cigarette smoke to do so. Given that breathing is a prerequisite for my continued existence, I should have the right to breathe CLEAN air. The right to smoke a cigarette stops when it impinges on my ability and right to breathe clean air. If I choose not to smoke, I should not have to be subjected to smoking by proxy through exposure to someone’s secondhand smoke.
As I mentioned earlier, I am aware of the holes in my case. I know that this is a purely emotional argument, and I realize that I may well alienate many of my readers who smoke. Keep in mind that this is not directed at smokers personally. It is directed at the risk of exposure to second-hand smoke. I do not advocating marginalizing smokers; however, I DO advocate marginalizing the act of smoking. All of us pay for the voluntary health risks assumed by those addicted to nicotine. As a society, I believe we all have a stake in this public health issue. While not everyone may feel as strongly as I do, I do believe that this country will be a better place to live when it is tobacco-free.
OK, so I’m a mean, heartless health Nazi willing to trample on the civil rights of innocent smokers. So be it. When your “right” to smoke interferes with my right to inhalee clean air, we have a problem. You do not have to smoke; I have to breathe.
When tobacco is outlawed, only outlaws will smoke tobacco….