Bar Hopping
The D-News has an article on Sen. Waddoups and Rep. Ray touring smoke-free bars with Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson to promote legislation barring smoking in private clubs.
I hate smoke as much as any other non-smoker and I understand the health risks of smoking and smoky places, but I can't get behind this legislation. If Gastronomy wants to make its restaurants smoke-free, more power to it; I'll be more likely to eat there. But, I don't see why other restaurants/clubs can't make a different choice and attract a different crowd; it's their property and their customers' choice.
The logic being used to push the legislation is that the workers and staff at the restaurants/clubs are not there by choice and that they suffer the effects. Correct me if you disagree, but my guess is that the establishments that would be involuntarily affected by the legislation allowed smoking when the workers signed on. In a full-employment economy like Utah is enjoying, and given the enormous number of smoke-free establishments that exist in the state, I don't think it's accurate to consider the workers as hostages to the environment. To me, this proposal cuts too deeply into property rights, lawful economic activity and people's ability to simply be left alone.
I adore Sen. Waddoups and Rep. Ray and their willingness to take on controversial issues. This is a debate worth having. But it's not legislation I would support.
I hate smoke as much as any other non-smoker and I understand the health risks of smoking and smoky places, but I can't get behind this legislation. If Gastronomy wants to make its restaurants smoke-free, more power to it; I'll be more likely to eat there. But, I don't see why other restaurants/clubs can't make a different choice and attract a different crowd; it's their property and their customers' choice.
The logic being used to push the legislation is that the workers and staff at the restaurants/clubs are not there by choice and that they suffer the effects. Correct me if you disagree, but my guess is that the establishments that would be involuntarily affected by the legislation allowed smoking when the workers signed on. In a full-employment economy like Utah is enjoying, and given the enormous number of smoke-free establishments that exist in the state, I don't think it's accurate to consider the workers as hostages to the environment. To me, this proposal cuts too deeply into property rights, lawful economic activity and people's ability to simply be left alone.
I adore Sen. Waddoups and Rep. Ray and their willingness to take on controversial issues. This is a debate worth having. But it's not legislation I would support.
posted by steve u. at 4/05/2005
Subscribe
7 Comments:
right on....tell Sen. Waddoups and Rep. Ray to get blogs of their own going.....thanks for blgging.......good leadership..........dk
I am a smoker. I live in CA. I cannot go to a restaraunt, shopping mall, hospital, airport, bus station, school, or any building enclosed. They were going to make it so people could sue you for smoking in your house.
To the point: It's a free country. Leave me the hell alone, and I won't bother you. Why do you take my tax dollars gladly, then look at me with disdain? Are you aware there is no such thing as 2nd hand smoke? It's a hoax, but everyone falls for the lib line. So be it. Just don't come knocking on my door when they start taking away your rights, also.
This was a rant. It was not targeted at you, Steve. It is just getting ridiculous.
Are you aware that they are allowed to discriminate against you in the hotel/apartment business for smoking but not for homosexualality?
I am a Christian, and I don't like people having sex without being married. It offends me! I don't say anything though, because I would rather live by example. I only talk when asked, sort of! LOL. Thanks for the topic.
Steve, I understand your point. I do, however see this issue differently. A person who works in the SLC service industry will make a lot more money working in a place that serves alcohol and allows smoking.
I think it is unreasonable to expect workers to choose substantially lower pay over working in smoking conditions especially in an industry that struggles to provide a real liveable wage at all. Any parent would take the personal risk to provide for their families.
Although workers are willing to take this risk, I don't believe we should ever ask a worker to choose between their paycheck or their health.
This is a worker protection issue, because we bait workers into dangerous conditions with the opportunity of money. There is technically a choice involved, but economic concerns render it meaningless.
Ethan,
I agree with your statement that it is wrong to "bait workers into dangerous conditions with the opportunity of money" when those conditions can be addressed. However, I don't think that workers are being uniquely baited into these situations. It seems the trend is toward more smoke-free environments (like all the Gastronomy establishments), with or without government regulation. Though I do not know the answer, I assume the wages are the same in both settings, smoking-allowed or smoke-free.
I quickly ran through your blog -- http://slcspin.blogspot.com/ -- and really enjoyed it. But, of course, I will run through it in more detail later, to see if it ever took issue with one of my enlightened bills, in which case I will have to argue that the dirty little rag is a bane to political discourse in the state and should be shunned by all clear-thinking persons.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm with Steve. It's a free choice thing - freedom to contract they used to call it back in the Marshall court. Believe it or not it was a constitutional right. That was before the New Deal and substantive due process, but I digress. People ought to be paid more to work in a less healthy environment. And people ought to have that choice and not have it taken away from them by a paternalistic state.
I have offended someone with my comment about homosexuality, and for that I apologize. That was NOT my intent. I just picked one of the many topics: taxes, school choice, the Bible being read gets you thrown out of school, etc., to make a point. If someone could offer a non-offensive, non-political, non-personal topic that I might use when I am trying to make a point, I sure would appreciate it. I cannot think of one. Sorry.
<< Home