From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: WoD Frontline Report: 1-Sep-92, The Smoking Ban
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:31:39 -0500



     Tonight, I attended a meeting of the County Health Department
board.  They were scheduled to discuss and perhaps vote on either
of two proposed ordinances that would place prohibitions on smoking
in restaurants.  Ordinance #1 would be an absolute ban on all
smoking in establishments that serve food; ordinance #2 would be a
ban on all establishments that serve food to people under the age
of 18.

     The big public meeting on the proposed ordinances had been
held on 13 August but I had been unable to attend.  By all
accounts, there was a lot of opposition to both plans, principally
by local restauranteurs.  Tonight's board meeting had not
originally scheduled a period for public comment but because this
was such a hot issue and because of such a large turnout for the
previous meeting, they decided to allow more input.

     About the first hour was given over to what I gathered must be
typical business: a show and tell from a couple of the health
inspectors who displayed some of the equipment they used, followed
by a lengthy discussion of septic variances.  It finally came time
to pass on to the matter of the proposed smoking ban.

     First up was a couple who owned two small restaurants in
Bloomington.  They dropped 380-odd petitions on the table around
which the board sat.  These were petitions NOT to enact either
ordinance.  They pointed out that their clientele was predominantly
blue-collar and about 70% smoked.  On weekends, these folks brought
their families.  The couple said such an ordinance would devastate
their business.

     This was followed by an elderly woman who favored the ban and
talked about how bad smoking was and how smokers should be able to
survive for an hour at dinner without smoking and inflicting their
vice on everyone else.  Then it was my turn.

     After introducing myself, I thanked the board for allowing
discussion given that I couldn't make the August 13th meeting.  I
told them that the meeting fell on my anniversary so I had taken
that opportunity to go out to dinner with my wife.  I then
explained that I did not smoke tobacco -- had never smoked tobacco
-- and certainly didn't like being in a smoke-filled environment. 
However, I said, I did have serious reservations about this
ordinance.  I noted that we could all agree about the harmfulness
of tobacco to its users but that when the matter came to secondhand
smoke, the only evidence out there was that it posed a hazard to
people chronically exposed and not to people who might get some
fumes during an occasional brief outing at a restaurant.  I said
that I thought that treating secondhand smoke as an environmental
pollutant made sense but I had heard absolutely no justification
for governmental action at this point.  I have heard no
quantification of the level of risk posed by a particular amount of
secondhand smoke -- in fact, I said, I bet that none of you up
there can give me dose-response figures for cigarette combustion
products.  At this point I stopped and looked at each of them in
turn.  Silence.  I proceeded.  Now, if you want to come up with
that data and arrive at levels of pollution that pose demonstrable
health risks and then bring your sniffers into restaurants, fining
those that violate the standards, I'll probably be on your side. 
But, what you are proposing is a sledge-hammer approach that
unreasonably tramples on people's rights.  I said that what
currently existed, with non-smoking areas in restaurants, seemed to
be a good compromise and they shouldn't tamper with it without good
reason.  Then I sat down.

     Five other people, including Dennis Withered, spoke.  Of the
five, two others were non-smokers who opposed the ban on
libertarian grounds and on the grounds that restaurants were being
singled out while the large companies that really did have captive
employees in smokey environments were exempted.  Dennis pulled out
his own dog-eared, well-worn copy of the Constitution and said that
people didn't have a right to go to a restaurant -- it was a choice
or a luxury.  On the other hand, the restauranteur was the owner of
the property and it was his choice to allow smoking or prohibit it
at his whim.  The public would decide by its patronage whether or
not it liked his choice.

     Following the public input, the Chairman stated that the board
would discuss the issue but said that, in light of all of the input
over the past several weeks, would discuss and consider a third
alternative.  I didn't stay around to hear more of the proceedings;
I needed to get home and two local reporters were there in any
case.  I knew that I'd read about it in tomorrow's paper.

     Some readers may wonder why I am including this in a Frontline
Report.  The reason is simple: the drug war is a life-style war
that is driven by hysteria and pseudo-science.  I think it is
important to address and defend smokers' rights as a matter of
principle.  Smoking is a threshold issue in that it is, without
question, the MOST hazardous drug to its users, and it can pose a
health risk to non-users.  Beyond that, the act of smoking really
can infringe on the rights of non-smokers and situations can arise
where I think governmental arbitration and/or intervention is
appropriate.  However, even here, I think it is very important to
guarantee that the hand of government rests lightly on its citizens
and the rights of all individuals should be carefully balanced.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Newsgroups: alt.drugs