In response to the editorial on Issue 5, I would like to point out that the SmokeFreeOhio initiative is not only beneficial to society as a whole, but it's also aligned with other state laws that protect the health and safety of business patrons.
Businesses like restaurants and bars actually have no right to self-regulate hazardous acts in their premises any more than they have the right to serve tainted meat, rotten salads or allow their patrons to engage in gun fights. Those activities are hazardous and the restaurant that allows those to happen would surely be fined if not shut down. Smoking, though not as dramatic and rapid as an E. Coli infection, is just as hazardous. Private businesses most definitely should not and do not have the freedom to self-regulate activities within their walls that are dangerous to the public. Public places should be as accountable for the health hazards of smoking in their premises as they are accountable for having a dirty kitchen, expired food, no fire extinguishers, allowing patrons in excess of their stated occupancy limits or poor accessibility for handicapped people.
The author of the editorial also seems to imply that there are cities in Ohio that have a culture of smoking. I challenge anyone to find such a city. If the author was possibly referring to Athens, I believe a single street lined with bars in the middle of Uptown that caters to a minority of the student population of Ohio University hardly qualifies Athens as a city with a culture of smoking.
Workers in smoky hospitality businesses ' often college students supporting their education ' are at a higher risk of cancer and heart disease. No matter what the culture, workers in Athens are as deserving of a healthy workplace as those in Columbus. A statewide law would not only protect all workers and customers, but also give businesses the level playing field they want.
On the other hand, Issue 4, funded by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, would leave children, seniors, workers and customers unprotected from secondhand smoke in restaurants, bowling alleys and many other public places. Issue 4 would also take away local communities' right to pass smoke-free laws.
The writer tries to equate secondhand smoke exposure to eating greasy foods or drinking too much. That analogy doesn't stand up; there is no such thing as secondhand obesity and when someone's right to drink conflicts with the health of others, there are drunk driving laws to protect health.
As a future primary care physician (and former pack-a-day smoker), most people would think that I would be all in favor of everyone drinking more, smoking more and eating greasy food seven days a week. The more people that engage in those behaviors, the more business I'll have in the future. It's ironic, however, that as a future medical professional, I feel a strong moral obligation to do as much as I can to prevent people from developing chronic disease and to encourage everyone to have a healthy lifestyle. I'm a proud supporter of Issue 5 and a member of SmokeFreeOhio. I encourage everyone to vote no on Issue 4 and yes on Issue 5.
17 Archives
Letter to the Editor
