Smoking ban should not be limited to government buildings
Feb 19, 2014 | 115 115 recommendations | email to a friend | print
To the editor:

I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to the recent mention of passing a smoke-free law that would only apply to government buildings. I support a smoke-free law, but I only support one that would cover all indoor workplaces and public places, including offices, bars and restaurants.

If one believes that secondhand smoke does indeed lead to heart attacks, asthma attacks, stroke and several cancers, then the logical conclusion is to protect all people from the toxic air, not just those in government buildings. Workers who breathe in toxic air do so several hours a day, several days a week. Their risk for developing disease and shortening their lives is greatly increased working in secondhand smoke.

We should extend protection to workers in bars and restaurants, not just government buildings. It is said that you can choose where to visit, but you must go into government buildings for drivers’ licenses, etc., so prohibiting smoking in places where citizens must go is justified.

I contend that there are several places that citizens must go aside from strictly government-owned property. A person must go to the grocery, for example, and if there is only one grocery and they allow smoking, then a person is forced to risk their health.

I also contend that most people must go to work. Again, a smoke-free law should be intended to protect all workers, not just the privileged few. No one should have to choose between their life and their livelihood.

Jessica Bliss, Cadiz
Click for Cadiz, Kentucky Forecast
Sponsored By:
Beaus Blog Logo
Read Beau's Daily Analysis