Smoking Ban of AlleghenyEssay Preview: Smoking Ban of AlleghenyReport this essayAlthough I have had to deal with secondhand smoke in my own home my entire life and I know the effects that secondhand smoke can and will have, I still feel as if people have the right to choose whether or not they want to smoke. This includes public establishments, especially places like restaurants and bars, which will be most affected by the Allegheny County smoking ban. Preventing people from smoking in such places will dramatically slow down business, which in turn will cost many people jobs as waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc. Also, and perhaps most importantly, not allowing people to smoke is an infringement on their fifth-amendment right to free choice.
I tried to read into this decision on my own, and I would like to do so. However, it has some caveats. First, I believe the Allegheny’s ban is important. In order to avoid being seen as punitive, it will not deter people and businesses from smoking. Second, a substantial change will happen to this type of ban and not on my watch. While I understand why it takes many more than 5 years for people to start smoking, I also think that to avoid having to re-evaluate some of these things that I’ve already written about I still support a free choice option for all of us, including those that support the issue. However, I don’t like to say we, or other groups of people that support an important measure of human rights, should not be allowed to have to choose between that choice and a ban that only affects them. The first and most common reason for not banning “big box” sites and other sites that don’t have a prohibition on smoking is to reduce the risk of a violent crime, which I understand is a legitimate goal, but I believe this is not what has worked for this state in the past and I’ve never read a case where a private tobacco site and other sites were targeted unfairly, and the results could lead us to make changes to our laws in an effort to address people’s fears. However, because of how the ban works (i.e., the number of sites allowed is based on what a smoker’s age group and how much they smoke), making it easier to choose between different methods for controlling smoking risks or not will ultimately lead to a more sensible policy. Also, this is an area that the state has very little control over, with people having little control over their behavior. For this reason, I am very concerned if the ban is too limited for too many people, it will not lead to any additional people who are likely to take steps to avoid being seen as law breakers. I hope the ruling will not put any further obstacles in the way of smoking-friendly environments. And I fully support the efforts of the Association of Town Agencies, which have provided a lot of input, but I believe this is the only way the ban affects them. I wish the state, and the tobacco industry a happy 2017 while you see it in Action. All of this is in support of smoking as a public health issue that benefits everyone. It would also make it possible for people to get their daily dose of what we currently offer, no matter which smoking cessation program they choose to use by taking the initiative. It would also make it possible for the Alliance of Community Health Agencies to help educate people about the risks to their health. And as a long-time smoker, I appreciate that many times, I can say that I do not smoke and to say no to an industry for which I often have to make tough choices because of the harm being done to them at
I tried to read into this decision on my own, and I would like to do so. However, it has some caveats. First, I believe the Allegheny’s ban is important. In order to avoid being seen as punitive, it will not deter people and businesses from smoking. Second, a substantial change will happen to this type of ban and not on my watch. While I understand why it takes many more than 5 years for people to start smoking, I also think that to avoid having to re-evaluate some of these things that I’ve already written about I still support a free choice option for all of us, including those that support the issue. However, I don’t like to say we, or other groups of people that support an important measure of human rights, should not be allowed to have to choose between that choice and a ban that only affects them. The first and most common reason for not banning “big box” sites and other sites that don’t have a prohibition on smoking is to reduce the risk of a violent crime, which I understand is a legitimate goal, but I believe this is not what has worked for this state in the past and I’ve never read a case where a private tobacco site and other sites were targeted unfairly, and the results could lead us to make changes to our laws in an effort to address people’s fears. However, because of how the ban works (i.e., the number of sites allowed is based on what a smoker’s age group and how much they smoke), making it easier to choose between different methods for controlling smoking risks or not will ultimately lead to a more sensible policy. Also, this is an area that the state has very little control over, with people having little control over their behavior. For this reason, I am very concerned if the ban is too limited for too many people, it will not lead to any additional people who are likely to take steps to avoid being seen as law breakers. I hope the ruling will not put any further obstacles in the way of smoking-friendly environments. And I fully support the efforts of the Association of Town Agencies, which have provided a lot of input, but I believe this is the only way the ban affects them. I wish the state, and the tobacco industry a happy 2017 while you see it in Action. All of this is in support of smoking as a public health issue that benefits everyone. It would also make it possible for people to get their daily dose of what we currently offer, no matter which smoking cessation program they choose to use by taking the initiative. It would also make it possible for the Alliance of Community Health Agencies to help educate people about the risks to their health. And as a long-time smoker, I appreciate that many times, I can say that I do not smoke and to say no to an industry for which I often have to make tough choices because of the harm being done to them at
I tried to read into this decision on my own, and I would like to do so. However, it has some caveats. First, I believe the Allegheny’s ban is important. In order to avoid being seen as punitive, it will not deter people and businesses from smoking. Second, a substantial change will happen to this type of ban and not on my watch. While I understand why it takes many more than 5 years for people to start smoking, I also think that to avoid having to re-evaluate some of these things that I’ve already written about I still support a free choice option for all of us, including those that support the issue. However, I don’t like to say we, or other groups of people that support an important measure of human rights, should not be allowed to have to choose between that choice and a ban that only affects them. The first and most common reason for not banning “big box” sites and other sites that don’t have a prohibition on smoking is to reduce the risk of a violent crime, which I understand is a legitimate goal, but I believe this is not what has worked for this state in the past and I’ve never read a case where a private tobacco site and other sites were targeted unfairly, and the results could lead us to make changes to our laws in an effort to address people’s fears. However, because of how the ban works (i.e., the number of sites allowed is based on what a smoker’s age group and how much they smoke), making it easier to choose between different methods for controlling smoking risks or not will ultimately lead to a more sensible policy. Also, this is an area that the state has very little control over, with people having little control over their behavior. For this reason, I am very concerned if the ban is too limited for too many people, it will not lead to any additional people who are likely to take steps to avoid being seen as law breakers. I hope the ruling will not put any further obstacles in the way of smoking-friendly environments. And I fully support the efforts of the Association of Town Agencies, which have provided a lot of input, but I believe this is the only way the ban affects them. I wish the state, and the tobacco industry a happy 2017 while you see it in Action. All of this is in support of smoking as a public health issue that benefits everyone. It would also make it possible for people to get their daily dose of what we currently offer, no matter which smoking cessation program they choose to use by taking the initiative. It would also make it possible for the Alliance of Community Health Agencies to help educate people about the risks to their health. And as a long-time smoker, I appreciate that many times, I can say that I do not smoke and to say no to an industry for which I often have to make tough choices because of the harm being done to them at
Ramy Andrawes, manager of the Sphinx Cafe, a South Side hookah bar specializing in tobacco sales, said the newest twist to Allegheny Countys proposed smoking ordinance — an amendment that would remove almost all exemptions — would force him to close his doors. “When they say youre not allowed to smoke, that means they want to put us out of business,” he said (Tribune-Review). Shouldnt the restaurant be able to make its own decision as to whether or not to allow smoking? If people prefer not to go to a place where they are not allowed to smoke, then they can certainly go somewhere else. However, what is a place that relies primarily on tobacco smoking to do if public smoking is banned? “In the 17 months after the Minneapolis, Bloomington & St. Paul, Minnesota public smoking bans went into effect on 03/31/05, 83 establishments went out of business, including such major chains as Dennys, TGIFridays and Perkins.” If such major establishments as Dennys and Perkins were unable to survive, then how can we justify this ban to small business owners who rely so heavily on return business, many of whom expect to be able to have a cigarette and enjoy their meal.
Inevitably, if restaurants and bars are losing business, then the individuals working for these establishments are going to lose jobs. Is it really necessary for hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of young bartenders and waiters to lose their jobs so that a few people who hate smoking do not have to sit twenty feet away from the smoking section? Perhaps a more reasonable solution would be to require more space between the smoking and non-smoking sections. Dividing the restaurant evenly in half, with the doors and windows open in the smoking section,