Bans on Smoking in American Cities: New

BANS ON SMOKING IN AMERICAN CITIES: NEW YORK CITY & LOS ANGELES

Public Health

Moving with unexpected swiftness, New York state lawmakers passed a sweeping anti-smoking measure that makes New York the third state after California and Delaware to ban smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars, and hotels. Within hours of the New York bill's passage, Governor George E. Pataki signed the tough measure, which exempts only America-Indian-owned casinos, cigar bars already licensed in New York City, fraternal clubs, outdoor areas of restaurants with no roof or awning, private homes, and personal but not company cars. New York's ban will take effect July 24 in areas where smoking now is permitted and where local ordinances are weaker. Although the law will not supersede the stricter measures previously passed in Westchester and Nassau counties, it will replace elements of New York City's new law, which took effect March 30.

Bans on Smoking in American Cities: New York City & Los Angeles

Over the course of my life, I have lived in both Los Angeles and New York City; therefore, I think I can offer a distinct opinion regarding the smoking bans in bars and restaurants. I am from Los Angeles and lived in Los Angeles for many years before the smoking bans took effect. I moved to New York City for a time, before the smoking bans and during them. My answer to the debate over the smoking bans in both cities is a bit ambiguous and conditional. Overall, I do agree with the smoking bans in bars and restaurants, but on the other hand, I do not agree, because smoking is a traditional element to the bar/restaurant atmosphere. Moreover, some bars such as sports bars and hookah bars are specific places people go to smoke and drink. Why should their experience, which they fully pay for, be subjugated to further regulation?

By now in the 21st century and the age of the Internet, people who choose to smoke cigarettes know what they are getting themselves into and if they do not, it is certainly very easy for them to gather the information. Education is a method that many states, including California use as a way to increase the chances of a piece of legislation such as a smoking ban take hold:

As with other public health laws, the primary mode for implementing the Smoke-Free Workplace Law in 1995 was education, with formal enforcement actions (citations and fines) kept to a minimum. A public education campaign focusing on the dangers of secondhand smoke (the justification for the law) that started 6 months before the law took effect eased implementation and minimized the need for formal enforcement. (Magzamen et al., The New Battleground, 2001)

Human beings have chosen to participate in activities that in moderation and in excess threaten their health for the duration of our existence. Perhaps it is one of the many singular behaviors that distinguish us as humans. If people want to go to a bar and smoke, they should be allowed to do so. Everyone who enters and works there deserves to be fully informed of the conditions and potential hazards of their workplace. There is evidence that demonstrates, though, that a smoke free work environment produces and sustains positive aspects of health for workers and patrons:

Stricter workplace smoke-free laws could protect patrons' and employees' health while also being a cost effective measure for employers. Having smoke-free establishments may improve employee productivity while decreasing absenteeism and turnover. These same restrictions have been shown to lead to a significant reduction in smokers' daily cigarette use and to promote smokers' cessation efforts. (Hahn, et al., Effects of a smoke free law…, 2006)

If necessary and for those employees to which it applies, the health care benefits should be augmented or at least correspond accordingly to the kinds of risks present and accepted by employees. People who wish to go to a bar and not smoke or be in a smoke free environment should have that chose as well. Not all consumers of alcohol additionally or concurrently enjoy cigarettes and some consumers of alcohol prefer a smoke free environment while they enjoy the atmosphere of a bar. Both kinds of bars should be able to mutually coexist while the smoking ban is in effect. Perhaps the smoking ban can be modified to allow for a certain percentage of bars in a district, city, etc. To permit smoking on the presence lawfully. It certainly would be more realistic.

I believe in the research on the detrimental effects upon health from second hand smoke. I also believe in a human being's right to choose what to put in his/her body, even if it is harmful. If people agree to voluntarily put themselves in a second hand smoke situation, they should be allowed to do so. Those who voluntarily remove themselves from second hand smoke situations should be allowed to do so. Banning smoking in public places is not going to stop people from smoking. Many countries around the world including America and in some ways thanks to America, have a long tradition of smoking cigarettes. Americans have smoke tobacco since there was an America. Tobacco is a crop the indigenous tribes grew, harvested, and used for many generations before the Europeans and later Africans came. All of the peoples who make up the American culture come from older traditions of cultures where smoking plants is a part of the way of life.