Smoking-plank-Pitt-News

==EDITORIAL - State smoking ban long overdue, inevitable==
===Pa. behind on restricting smoking===
: STAFF EDITORIAL, The Pitt News, September 2007
While state after state passes complete smoking bans, Pennsylvania still lags behind, allowing smokers to light up in public places and subjecting other patrons and employees to the hazards of secondhand smoke.
Recently, however, state legislators have planned another attempt at public smoking limitations, this time throwing casinos into the mix of possible non-smoking locations.
According to the Post-Gazette, Pennsylvania's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives approved legislation that would allow smoking to be eliminated in all workplaces, bars and casinos. The Republican-controlled Senate also supported the bill with certain exclusions, allowing smoking in bars that do not serve much food and permitting 25 percent of casino floors to be open to smoking.
The issue of banning smoking is a recurring one that crops up every now and again, never reaching a strong conclusion. If anything, this is a sign that a smoking ban is inevitable. It is not really a matter of whether or not the ban will take affect, but when.
While opponents argue that the state would be meddling in personal freedoms with such a ban, we disagree. The state has a right to get involved if those liberties are harming others. Not only is this harmful to other restaurant or bar patrons, but this is also a major health concern for restaurant or bar employees who must tolerate secondhand smoke for eight hours each day.
Comparable to the state proposal is the decision made by Pitt Senate's faculty assembly, which unanimously approved a plan to ban smoking within 15 feet of university buildings last Tuesday. The plan also allows certain areas to be designated for smokers.
But unlike the state plan, this 15-foot rule is not entirely necessary and is not the kind of response that would be beneficial in taking a stand against smoking in public. A ban of this sort would be difficult to enforce, unless the university is planning on recruiting anti-smoking officers to patrol the campus, constantly on the lookout for smokers who are breaking the law.
Also, standing 15 feet away from one building may make someone closer to another building, in some cases forcing smokers to go way out of their way in order to light up. If this ends up being the case, we will most likely find more and more cigarette butts littering the university grounds. Even designating certain areas for smokers is not a very good idea, as it is, once again, difficult to enforce and could get confusing.
Furthermore, the significance of a 15-foot ban is not clear to us. Why not make the ban 16 feet or 14? The way we see it, this seems like more of a bandwagon issue - as if the Pitt Senate was just emulating a response that appears to be in vogue.
The most important decision right now is to enforce the state ban that is long overdue. This is a serious public health issue that has been overlooked and pushed aside for too long. There will always be opposition, but no matter what, a ban is bound to happen.
So, why not sooner than later?
==Links==
* Smoking
category:Planks_from_elsewhere