By Gordon Garnos
AT ISSUE: Minnesota became the 20th state a couple of weeks ago to ban smoking in most public buildings. This includes a ban in bars and eateries and just about every other public building in the state. Our question is will South Dakota follow in the footsteps of our neighboring state to the east? Also, the question of should more liquor licenses in the state be authorized by the South Dakota Legislature? That will be discussed in Part II in today's column. (Full Story)
Monday, May 28, 2007
Will South Dakota follow Minnesota when it comes to a tougher smoking ban?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't know if it will, but it should.
Smokers have rights, you say! Well, the right to swing your first stops at the tip of a bystander's nose. So it goes with the toxins in smoke.
Tobacco is a legal product, you say! Well, alcohol is legal, but you can't drink and drive, because it endangers others. So it goes with smoke in a public gathering spot.
Twenty some states are smokefree. In a few years, the idea of allowing smoking in bars and restaurants will seem as strange to us as allowing smoking in schools, offices and airplanes does today.
Most workers in South Dakota already have smoke free workplaces. Are bar workers' lives really less worth protecting than office workers' lives?
The health of the employees is now being utilized as an argument to support a smoking ban? What if the employees smoke and therefore DO NOT want your misguided protection?
I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and as a non-smoker, I can also make my own "choices" as to whether I will or will not go into a smoking environment.
Post a Comment