Smokeless bars are the future; might as well get used to it
Is it time for Macomb to finally go smoke-free?
Julie Lord
Issue date: 10/11/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
|
I am not a smoker, yet whenever I decide to go to the bars (which, by the way, is one of the most-accessible recreational activities available in Macomb) I am signing on for an evening of inhaling hundreds of toxins, aggravating my allergies and trying in vain to wave the vile smoke in another direction.
All public buildings in Macomb, including bars and restaurants, should be smoke-free.
This opinion is not popular with many, as is the case with any major change. But unfortunately for tobacco enthusiasts, it's going to happen everywhere eventually, and Macomb - a town full of young, educated and progressive students - should be no exception.
We've all heard the retorts: "I only smoke when I drink," "college is a time for experimenting and having fun," "I should be free to smoke where I want to." None of these arguments, however, stand up when confronted with cold, hard facts.
First of all, smoking is addictive. This is common knowledge. Though nicotine levels have been reduced slightly since the 1998 multi-state tobacco company settlement, cigarettes remain wildly addictive; just ask anyone who has tried to quit. Even those who only "smoke when they drink" can become addicted.
Second, college is actually an excellent time to develop an addiction. Studies performed by multiple institutions, such as the American Lung Association, show many college students feel invulnerable to the negative effects of tobacco. Ironically, similar studies show people under the age of 21 develop addictions much more quickly than older folks. Yes, tobacco companies really do market to young people. Why wouldn't they, when they know teenagers and college kids will likely become life-long customers?
Finally, freedom of choice - though one of the cornerstones of our American belief system - should not extend to public smoking, as it endangers the health of more than just the smoker. Some choose to argue that alcohol is just as harmful as tobacco use. Drinking, though undoubtedly dangerous, harms only the person consuming it; secondhand smoke, on the other hand, is actually more harmful than smoke taken directly from a cigarette.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 6
J
posted 10/11/06 @ 12:25 PM CST
Since bars in Macomb only cater to those 20 and over, and realistically speaking, 20-year-olds should make up a very small minority of people legally in the bars anyway, I don't believe the comment about developing addictions prior to age 21 is relevant to the discussion as to whether smoking should be allowed in establishments that do not cater to people under 21 years of age. (Continued…)
J
posted 10/11/06 @ 12:28 PM CST
As for the comment that drinking only hurts the person doing the drinking, tell that to a victim of date rape, the parent of a child killed by a drunk driver, or someone eles who IMMEDIATELY realized the negative effects of someone else drinking, as opposed to the allegations that you may, possibly, perhaps develop lung cancer 30, 40 or 50 years down the road from inhaling second-hand smoke (but over that duration of time, pinpointing one cause seems junk science to me). (Continued…)
james
posted 10/17/06 @ 4:11 PM CST
julie yes i agree second hand smoke is bad.
can i buy you a beer sometime.
jim
jmeazell@yahoo.com
Rick Harrison
posted 3/11/07 @ 12:13 AM CST
I recently visited Columbus Ohio and was surprised to realize that bars are smoke free. While patronizing the bars, I noticed the bars were packed full of people, dancing and having a good time. (Continued…)
Post a Comment