SB 95, introduced by Sen. Errington, is a state wide smoking ban.
I suppose this is another opportunity to engage in discussion of property rights, government regulation, and their application to pollution and other discharges from the use of property that impact the rights of other people.
But, again, I don’t see the legislature rushing to take up this issue.
As long as it doesn’t exclude bars, I’m in.
I can’t say I’d support legislating away property rights, no matter the good intentions, when the simplest answer is: “Don’t like smoke? Don’t go there.”
If I want to pipe mustard gas through my business suite, that’s my right.
Sorry, I’m pretty sure mustard gas isn’t legal for you to possess much less use in any fashion… Might get you invaded by Bush & Cheney & Co.
Points for hyperbole, though.
But on second thought, negative points for a really stupid, irrelevant analogy.
Michaelk42,
The only reason to ban smoking is for the employees. Employees shouldn’t have to choose a new career because of a health risk at work.
Unavoidable hazards for a bartender or wait staff should include getting cut by broken glass, slipping on a spill, etc. Things they’ll likely survive, and can’t be eliminated without elimination the job of serving food and drink.
Smoking, however, is not required for a bar or restaurant, but the risk of cancer to an employee that may kill them is very real.
Jason,
There can be such things as bars that choose to be smoke-free on their own.
Bartenders and wait staff can choose to work at whatever bars or restaurants they want. If it’s a big enough deal to them, they can choose to work somewhere else.
When I was a bartender I wasn’t exactly worried about my advanced degree in bartending sciences going to waste if I couldn’t find a bar work environment to my liking. Your position is nonsense.