Hack in the saddle again

Are smoking bans fair?

Posted by Katharine Wroth at 1:02 PM on 15 Sep 2005

Read more about: Seattle | health | air pollution

Well, I'd subject you to more TV updates, but I actually went out last night and had a life. Which involved being in a smoke-filled bar for several hours. Which got me to thinking ... yuck.

Seattle's one of the country's healthiest cities, yet it's only just now getting around to considering a smoking-ban referendum. If the effort passes, Seattle will join the growing list of cities (Boston, Minneapolis), states (California, Delaware), and even countries (Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden) that have put butts under wraps.

This public-health progress has come despite agitated protests on business, political, and personal grounds. I have to admit, I didn't have strong feelings about such bans until I lived (pre-Seattle) in a city that instituted one. And then I realized: breathing? It's a good thing.

For story: Hack in the saddle again
2 Comments | Post a Comment

The Big Apple

Don't forget New York City!!!

by Chris Schults at 1:29 PM on 15 Sep 2005

Tough call

Smoking is interesting because it's such a diffuse thing, kinda like non-point source water pollution. To put a blanket ban on it strikes our intuition as a million separate "injustices", rather than just one big "injustice" (like the pollution from a power plant), which I think makes it harder for people to accept.

The effects of second-hand smoke are real. But the effects themselves are somewhat diffuse -- second-hand smoke inhalation's damage is long-term, not immediate. And the quality-of-life aspect (I hate being in smoky bars, myself) is also a little weak to merit banning an entire social activity.

But I think I'm in the solid majority of this country, which is to say non-smokers who not only find second-hand smoke unhealthy but also really really obnoxious. And to not be hypocritical, if I want to smoke any other kinds of plants, I'll still be aware to not be forcing others to deal with it. And this is a democracy, and what's really the alternative than banning it as much as constitutionally (and ethically) possible in public?

Definitely a cloudy issue.

(Sorry about that.)

by accel2 at 7:21 AM on 19 Sep 2005

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.