26 of 314

Yes

Write now Article Tools

As of January 1, 2008, our state has banned smoking in all public places. This has caused much controversy as reported by our local newspapers. It seems to keep reporting on the issue. I am a smoker and have mixed emotions on the subject. I voted on the yes side of this debate due to the way it is worded.

There should be a ban for public places where children or those with breathing problems may be present. I have seen the affect of those with asthma have when breathing smoke filled air. Although smoke in these places aren't the only thing that can throw a person into an attack. Strong perfume or air freshener can also trigger a massive attack.

Restaurants going smoke free is another good thing brought on from the ban. I believe everyone should have the right to eat and not have smoke blown in his or her faces. As a smoker I can live without a cigarette during a meal.

Hospitals, schools and business such as government offices are also places that the ban seems to be beneficial.

But alas this is where my emotions become mixed. By putting a government ban on individual businesses it takes a way the individual right of the business owner to dictate what is acceptable in their establishment.

One of the biggest controversies in our state is whether to exempt bars, casinos, private clubs and adult venues from the ban. They are considering issuing licenses to establishments that make less than 15% of their income from food to allow smoking. Casinos would be exempt with these licenses and private establishments such as the VFW post could also get a license for their bar area.

The main push for the ban was the nonsmoking population touting the health issues of breathing second hand smoke. They were adamant they could not go out to any establishment with all the smoking. Once that issue was taken care of they still didn't go out thus businesses have lost business. The businesses are reporting income losses of 25% to 70%. Casinos have reported a 15% to 25% loss in revenue. Where are all the nonsmokers who had used smokers as their excuse?

Many bars have opened beer gardens to accommodate their smoking cliental. Seemed a simple solution to please all but that is not the case. Recently there was an article on nonsmokers complaining about not being able to use the beer garden on nice days because of the smoke. These beer gardens are outside. Yet the complainers feel they should not be around smokers if they are in that area. It will be interesting to follow this story, as the weather gets warmer.

I truly believe the answer would be to have smoking and nonsmoking establishments. Let the owners decide which their establishment would be. Then all could have places to go and things to do.

As a smoker I am well aware of the health issues involved with my smoking. I do not mind going outside 15 feet or more from the entrance so as to not bother others. But since the ban on smoking in public people who don't smoke or have quit smoking have ridiculed me. Yelling things like, "Why don't you just quit." Or "That better be 15 feet as the law states or I'm turning you in." They think this is cute and laugh. I have accepted the smoking ban for my place of employment and should not be ridiculed or have to listen to their rhetoric as they got what they wanted.

As stated I believe the ban is good for most public places. I simply believe there should be accommodations for those who continue to smoke and without the holier than thou attitude of some insensitive nonsmokers. Smoking doesn't make a person a second hand citizen.

Learn more about this author, Dee Cain.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should smoking be allowed in public places??
We want to hear your view. Write now!