Lowering the Bar on Smoking Concerns
Life is fun!
The fun part is not so much that people can't smoke in restaurants. I don't have a strong opinion either way. It is a health issue, and the government has certain responsibilities regarding public health. However, it is another case of the government stepping into our private lives. Not nearly as much as the legislation the US Congress has passed and Senor Soundbite (my new nickname for that president figure) has signed last month in the name of security, but it is still questionably intrusive.
The fun part is listening to the half-baked arguments against the ban and the misguided implications that smoking in restaurants is the most important health crisis in Olmsted County.
Dover Mayor Roger Ihrke asks "Why in the world would we as elected officials get ourselves into situations where we decide what's good and bad for people?" Dick Jensch, a restaurant owner, said "It's a sad commentary when seven people can vote to outlaw smoking, which is legal."
Mayor Ihrke might want to look at his job description again. If there is a situation that needs to be looked into, then the elected officials look into it and determine if a law, statute, or ordinance should be made. I realize we're at a point in history where even DEMOCRATS think their sole purpose is to provide plutocratic avenues for the rich to get even richer no matter the avenues' effects on families, workers, or the environment. But, technically, elected officials are there to promote the greater good for the greater people. When you don't feel the elected officials are doing such, you elect officials you think will do such. Well, you TRY to elect officials. (Try being anti-Republican in Southeast Minnesota!) Elected officials are there to protect people where they need protection and where the protection doesn't violates individual rights.
The other option, I suppose, is for Mayor Ihrke and Mr. Jensch to overthrow the United States government.
It's very difficult to outlaw something if it isn't legal. If it's illegal someone already beat you to the outlawing action. Maybe Mr. Jensch would rather the county board waste time outlawing things that are already illegal. Plus, this isn't making smoking illegal. It's making smoking in restaurants illegal. You can still smoke (for now, at least) in your own home, car, backyard, etc. This is just saying that you can't smoke if you're in a restaurant. It simply means that you are not allowed to pump cigarette toxins and carcinogens into fellow restaurant patrons. If you want people filled with excessive toxins, take them to a McDonalds or drive an SUV. Just don't smoke in a restaurant.
And it is just restaurants. Bars are exempt from the ban.
And what about the bars? Why is it unsafe to smoke in a restaurant but safe to smoke in a bar? Here are some other possibilities:
Perhaps banning smoking in bars was too confusing. "Now, are we banning smoking in bars, or barring smoking in bars, or banning bars you smoke, or barring bans on smoking, or banning smoking for those who haven't passed the bar exam? And does it matter if the bar has a smokin' band?" In the end, it was probably just easier to let the bar patrons kill themselves off.
Maybe the bar clause has something to do with the iceberg effect. The danger in a bar is more than just smoking. Like the visible part of an iceberg, tobacco just scratches the surface of bar health concerns. You'd be there all day finding unhealthy practices to ban (so make sure you order up some delicious Buffalo wings). People are throwing darts. People are eating deep fried appetizers. People are drinking. People are fighting. People are playing (trouble with a capital "T" which rhymes with "p" and that stands for) pool. You have your gambling, too. And maybe even some hookers. Worst of all, bars with TVs often will show the Green Bay Packers game. Unsafe, I say! UNSAFE! Maybe the county board thought it best not to open that Pandora's box. They do have lives, you know.
Finally, there's always the possibility that the county board has heard of the Drinking Wallendas principle. Have you ever noticed there is no thinner and taller chair in the world than a barstool. And the chair has no back. If there is anything more unstable than sitting on a barstool, I have yet to see it. I just look at a barstool and I put my arm out for balance. But, of course, who sits in such chairs? People who are drinking. That's right--people who are disabling their motor skills and equilibrium. Apparently in some weird a-double-negative-equals-a-positive mindset, they put the tipsiest people on the tipsiest chairs. That's where the cigarettes become handy. Drinkers use them as a tightrope walker would use a balancing pole. That's why you always see smokers waving their cigarettes around--it's balance and counter-balance. If bar patrons could not smoke, most of them would fall over. We NEED smoking to be allowed in bars. It's a public health issue.
Those are some possibilities. While I can't answer all the ethical and philosophical questions regarding the Olmsted County Board's decision, I hope I helped explain why it may not be as unfair as it appears on the surface. And I hope I've satisfactorily expressed the rationalization for smoking in bars.
At least, satisfactorily enough to get bars to give me some complementary mozzarella sticks! Mmm mmmm mmmmm!
return to Commentary index
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.
© 2001, Mark Wentz