« DON'T POSTPONE SMOKING BAN! | Main | Joe laments loss of the party of FDR, Truman, JFK »
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Hurrah for Columbia's (eventual) smoking ban, but delay is inexcusable
Too late! Columbia City Council already approved the delay.
Now, to take a step back -- it's wonderful that the decision has finally been made -- and look, it was by 5-2, not the expected 4-3...
But it's bad that the current unconscionable state of affairs will continue for three more months. There's just no excuse for that.
One of my colleagues disagreed with me on that point this morning, saying that it's reasonable to wait and implement it at the same time as Richland County. But that's ridiculous. One would only do so out of an abstract sense of administrative tidiness. There is no advantage to be gained by waiting for the county that is not outweighed by the wrongness of exposing city workers to carcinogens for three more months, after you've already decided that it's right to protect them.
There is NO safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. And since any exposure greater than zero is unsafe, three months of unnecessary exposure is unconscionable.
For that matter, since Richland is expected to have a final vote on the subject by June 17, why can't that ban go into effect July 1? It took what -- three days after the referendum (a far less tidy and less predictable instrument than a council vote) for stores to start selling beer on Sunday in Columbia. If you know you have the votes, and you're working toward it, how much gearing up is necessary to say smoking is now banned in the county? Why can't it be in effect immediately? I'll be told time is necessary for notification, but you know, you don't have to penalize anyone who wasn't notified yet (like there's any bar or restaurant owner who won't know about it the day of the vote, which seems highly unlikely). Enforcement will never be perfect, any more than enforcement of the law against murder is perfect (I mean direct, overt, immediate and obvious murder, as distinguished from the slow kind of forcing people to breathe smoke day after day). Most of the effectiveness of such an ordinance will result from the voluntary cooperation of law-abiding people. There is no reason not to let that begin immediately.
What next -- postpone again to wait for Lexington County, or for Cayce and West Columbia. The town of Lexington is now thinking about discussing a ban. Must Columbia wait for them, too? It would make just as much sense to wait for them -- especially for Lexington County -- as for Richland. That is, unless you argue that waiting for Richland makes sense because Columbia is located within that county -- but if that's your argument, Columbia's ban is superfluous, unless incorporated areas were to be exempted.
This delay is ridiculous, and it is wrong.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 12:03 PM in Health, Midlands, South Carolina
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e5526c355d8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hurrah for Columbia's (eventual) smoking ban, but delay is inexcusable:
Comments
On to the next crusade to mind the business of other people.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 21, 2008 12:05:14 PM
So what is it you're doing here, Lee, if not that?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | May 21, 2008 1:48:15 PM
No amount of smoking bans or other unconstitutional laws is going to bring down the price of gas or give you free health care. So, go ahead flay the hide off that dead horse, but when the wheel turns don't squeal to me.
Posted by: Richard L. Wolfe | May 21, 2008 2:23:05 PM
I'm glad to see this pass, but I agree that there really is no excuse for the added delay. As someone with respiratory problems I look forward to being able to go to all restaurants and bars without worrying about being able to breathe smokey air.
Posted by: Pete | May 21, 2008 2:32:10 PM
I guess I should be grateful because the tax hike on cigarettes will cause me to quit. I won't go to the bars and restaurants either. Since they are the cowards that allowed this to happen.
Posted by: Richard L. Wolfe | May 21, 2008 2:40:55 PM
No safe level of secondhand smoke? Before you put all the blame on secondhand smoke for spoiling your otherwise wonderful world, don't forget that the EPA says that radon kills 21,000--possibly 45,000 people each year. Like secondhand smoke, they say there is no safe level of radon...and it's everywhere. So if you are fearful of secondhand smoke, I presume you will stay at home breathing nothing but air you have at least attempted to make radon-free. It's for your safety.
Posted by: framis | May 21, 2008 2:52:46 PM
I'll just be glad if it goes into effect by the time it gets cold. I can enjoy outside places at bars during the summer, but in the winter, well, we've been doing a lot of going to each others' homes, but, doggone it, sometimes ya just wanna go to a bar and then out to dinner. And 15-20 minutes in a smoky bar is all I can take. I'm congested, and I feel like I can't breathe, so, yes, it will be nice to be able to hang with friends. By the way, only one of them smokes, and she's all for the ban.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | May 21, 2008 2:54:38 PM
Brad, We passed a comprehensive (total ban) No Smoking Ordinance today. Any ordinance of this type would have a three month implementation period. I spoke to the Chairman of Richland County Council to suggest a mutual date of implementation. The County is about one month behind the City. By having the date the same we remove the issue of bars in the City and County having different rules for a period of time. October 1st is a reasonable start date.
Posted by: Bob Coble | May 21, 2008 4:54:06 PM
Richard –
Funny you should mention free healthcare here. If you take all of the requirements of all the “free” healthcare systems in the world, mix in America’s demographics, and stir gently, you’ll get free healthcare only for thin non-smokers at a cost of 14% of payroll (7% employee, 7% employer).
So Columbia and Richland County are simply preparing us for the inevitable. The next bit of help should be a surtax on fatty foods both at restaurants and grocery stores, just to encourage good eating habits. Probably ought to extend it to candy and any other item with a high caloric content for its size. Starches -- carbs -- too, a potato tax would get folks to substitute locally grown foods like peaches and okra. Don’t worry, the do-gooder will figure out the perfect life for all of us.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | May 21, 2008 4:54:33 PM
At what point has it become okay for the government to dictate what a private business owner can have smoking or non smoking? This is getting ridiculous. I am a non-smoker but I believe in the right of a private citizen to allow or not allow smoking in his/her business. I will remember the ones that voted for this socialist action and I will also not patron businesses in Columbia or else where that patron this type of socialist liberal behavior. It is not like these idiots in the legislative body have anything better to do.... do nothing congress comes to mind.
Posted by: jerry zucker | May 21, 2008 5:06:39 PM
people seem to forget smokers are relied on for taxes and to line the belly's of all the pork spending in this state and nation. Go ahead tax us out of smoking and force us not to smoke. the non-smokers can pick up the bill then. what a bunch of morons in south Carolina
Posted by: Former Knotts supporter | May 21, 2008 5:09:07 PM
i dont care. I will smoke where I want. i just got back from Charleston that has a smoking ban. I SMOKED ANYWAY just to piss non smokers off. the owners of the bars and restaurants asked me to put it out and I told them they can go to H%LL. then blew it in there face. I will do the same here in Columbia. or i will stand beside the door and smoke my little heart out and blow it in the face of all that enter. try me. i will win every time.
Posted by: hussein obama | May 21, 2008 5:15:35 PM
So you're a jackass in H%LL now? Where exactly is that anyway? A big part of a smoking ban is for employees, not just patrons or business owners. Why should someone have to endure a dangerous environment just to get a paycheck?
Posted by: Jay | May 21, 2008 6:40:58 PM
It looks like Jay is unaware of the extensive medical, FAA, FTC, FDA, and OSHA studies in the 1960s and 1970s of employees subjected to smokers all day, which found they had no more health problems than non-smokers who were not around smokers.
It's all about some people wanting to feel good about themselves by telling other people what to do. Then these reactionary bigots call themselves, "liberal".
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 21, 2008 8:44:27 PM
Yeah, you know, I'm really not up on scientific studies from the 60's. Color me current-information-biased, but it doesn't take much more than common sense to see that second-hand smoke is dangerous. If you need some actual facts, you don't need to go back more than a couple years.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
Posted by: Jay | May 21, 2008 9:46:12 PM
Ok, I'll try some html in there for that link. Turns out, cigarette smoke is bad. Who knew?
Posted by: Jay | May 21, 2008 9:47:35 PM
From the surgeon general's report: "The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
Once upon a time, the world was flat, and the sun and planets revolved around our Earth, too, as did the stars.
The surgeon general's statement is pure, unadulterated political propaganda. It doesn't say "no safe level," per Mr. Warthen's misquote. It says "no risk-free level."
Driving 55 mph in the right lane of a South Carolina superhighway is pretty safe, but it's not risk-free. Neither is walking into the kitchen or leaning over to tie your shoes.
That's not to say second-hand smoke is a harmless thing at any level, nor that some measures to limit non-smokers' exposure to recreational smoke aren't appropriate.
But banning smoking where liquor is served is a joke.
Posted by: penultimo mcfarland | May 22, 2008 12:15:25 AM
I think I figured it out where some of you are coming from. To most people, government has an interest in protecting people who can't, or don't have the power to protect themselves. That's why we have things like social services and the minimum wage. It also has an interest in staying out of people's business and not infringing on their rights. Sometimes those two things might tug at each other, but the Lee's and penultimo's of the world only think the government has in interest in staying out of their business. Therefore anything that the government does that affects them someway adversely or negatively is solely for the purpose of infringing their rights. Is that right?
Posted by: Jay | May 22, 2008 7:34:24 AM
Jay -
To some “protecting” is the issue. To them government’s primary role is national defense, so even a public health service should be constrained so as to operate within narrow bounds and not create a scold that seeks to protect the nation from all that’s unhealthy.
So when it comes to protecting people who can't, or don't have the power to protect themselves, why does that include employees and patrons of bars and restaurants? Why can’t the owner decide whether or not to allow smoking? Then potential employees and patrons can decide how lucky they feel. Let them protect themselves, or not, on their own.
This is indeed a slippery slope. Even smoking-ban supporters acknowledge that as they argue that the health of others is their primary concern, not denying liberty to bar-owners and patrons. So the next step may be to ban or tax unhealthy food. I’m not sure what follows that, but I’m sure I’ll find that fascist too.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | May 22, 2008 7:57:17 AM
It is interesting that the controlled press devoid of reason, logic and common sense chooses to resort to lies, distortion, fear mongering, sensation and hypocrisy to push it’s agenda driven “news.”
I use to work at M.U.S.C. and TRIDENT REGIONAL HOSPITAL in my early twenties. I worked in what was called Central Supply. This department issued supplies to all areas of the hospital. I had access to all areas of the hospital. I can truthfully tell you that I never saw anyone come in on a stretcher as a result of smoking. You print letters from readers who describe in graph detail their bouts or their loved ones suffering with cancer.
Perhaps you will allow me to describe the victims of alcohol or abortion in the same graphic detail. The ambulance pulls up with two EMT.’s pushing a victim of a head on collision with a drunk driver. The first thing you notice is what was a white sheet is now almost completely red. Sometimes, a third technician is carrying what was once an arm or foot that was once attached to the victim. The paramedics would often describe splattered brains on the windshield, broken teeth on the dashboard, and fragmented bones in the carpet.
You never hear the sobs of women beaten to a bloody pulp while their terrified children are huddled in the corner witnessing a traumatic scene that will remain with them for the rest of their lives. This just the victims of alcoholics. It would take thousands of words to describe in detail what the alcoholics do to themselves because of their “socially accepted habit.”
I actually retched when I was told that glob of medical waste was once a fetus. No one hears or cares when a psychologically scarred women wakes up in the middle of the night screaming “ where is my baby.” I will stop here. I think you get the picture. The closest you can come to this with cigarettes is the word “ related.” The words you would have to use with the scenes I described are actual, real and epidemic.
Posted by: Richard L. Wolfe | May 22, 2008 8:14:55 AM
Mike, the difference with cigarette smoke is that actions taken by one individual adversely affect the health of another person. An individual who eats large quantities of unhealthy food is only harming his or her own body.
Richard, the fact that the harm caused by cigarette smoke is gradual rather than immediate is entirely irrelevant.
And to Brad, I say "chill out". We've waited years for a smoking ban; we can wait an extra three months.
Posted by: Wally Altman | May 22, 2008 9:09:27 AM
So Wally immediate death from drunk drivers or abortion is no problem, while gradual ( your words ) death requires dracanian measures ?
Posted by: Richard L. Wolfe | May 22, 2008 9:14:33 AM
I didn't say it was no problem. There is no rule that says you can only fix one thing at a time. You are arguing that, since we can't stop drunk drivers or abortions, we shouldn't attempt to reduce secondhand smoke exposure. The issues are totally unrelated.
Posted by: Wally Altman | May 22, 2008 9:23:27 AM
I'll try again, Jay, since you obviously didn't read what I wrote, or, if you read it, you didn't understand it.
Banning smoking where liquor is served is like requiring those who gambling at a Las Vegas casino to wear insect repellent.
The surgeon general's statement, "There is no risk-free level of second-hand smoke," makes no common sense, much less scientific sense. Likewise the assertion in the report that second-hand smoke is more harmful than first-hand smoke to smokers themselves.
The document is political propaganda loosely based on science to buy votes.
Because I smoke, I have been branded the enemy, and, yes, I resent that Columbia would ostracize me, make no allowance for me whatsoever, because it has become politically popular, and The State's editorial page editor has lifelong respiratory ills.
Posted by: penultimo mcfarland | May 22, 2008 9:28:48 AM
I was mainly responding to what you seem to think are the motivations, as evidenced by statements like this. "The document is political propaganda loosely based on science to buy votes." And I was genuinely asking if I was on the right track as far your thoughts.
If you think that the government has no role in protecting it's citizenry (other than defense, apparently), then logically, i can see where it follows that they're doing it because it's propaganda, nanny-state, socialism, or whatever motivation you want to ascribe to it. Believe it or not, I'm trying to understand why this smoking ban is so anathema to you and others.
Posted by: Jay | May 22, 2008 9:53:33 AM
