[PLUG-TALK] Do NOT extend the workplace smoking law

[Russ Johnson]

Keith Lofstrom wrote:

>FYI:  There will be hearings Wednesday in Salem to extend
>the workplace smoking law to eliminate smoking in all public
>establishments.  Some of my PLUG friends smoke; while I think
>it is a stupid thing to do, and I would like to help you quit,
>you are still my friends and I don't think making your life
>harder is going to help you.  Hence the letter to my
>representatives, copied below:
>  
>
Yes, some of my friends smoke too. However, in restaurants, bars and the 
other few establishments that allow smoking, you are condemning the 
workers to second hand smoke.

Not to mention that less than 50% of the population now smokes. Why 
should *I* have to inhale their smoke.

There are MANY places I refuse to go to (Virginian Cafe, Downtown PDX 
for one) where the food is good, but the smoking just ruins my appetite. 
Made me long for Eugene, where smoke IS banned from all workplaces.

People adapt. If someone can't handle 60 minutes without a cigarette 
during their meal, they need to quit. Or they will quit when it kills them.

>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Sen. Ryan Deckert:
>Rep. Mark Hass:
>
>I am deathly allergic to tobacco smoke - I can go into
>anaphylactic shock and need hospitalization.  Nevertheless,
>I **OPPOSE** the further restrictions of smoking areas to
>be discussed in hearings planned for Wednesday.  Pushing
>smokers out of their designated spots (which I can avoid)
>and onto the streets and sidewalks (which I cannot) will
>greatly restrict my ability to travel.  The state of
>Oregon cannot afford the additional liability it will
>incure if it interferes in this ill-conceived way.
>  
>
Oh, like you DON'T encounter the smoke that gets blown out of these 
places. It certainly doesn't remain inside forever.

>Smokers have a stupid and deadly habit.  But they will not
>ditch that habit with the stroke of a pen.  Servers in bars
>and restaurants should have a choice about working where
>smoking is permitted, and in fact they do.  Closing those
>places will not increase job opportunities.
>  
>
Nope, but they shouldn't pollute OUR air either.

Telling workers to get a different job in this economy is just rude. 
There are still more workers than jobs in this state, and most of the 
workers that WILL work these jobs would just move to another job that 
allows smoking... Unless they move to a place (like Eugene) that does 
ban smoking everywhere.

Did you realize that revenue in bars and restaurants went UP when New 
York City enacted this ban? Smoking is bad for business, as well as bad 
for the smoker.

>If you want to do some good with legislation, consider instead:
>
>(1) Requiring large and visible signage designating areas
>    where smoke (as opposed to smoking or smokers) may occur.
>    Make the signs as rude as you wish!
>
>(2) Unemployed workers should not be required to take jobs at
>    smoking establishments or lose their unemployment benefits.
>    Any rules that permit this imposition should be modified.
>  
>
It's not the unemployment that hurts. It's the fact that most of the 
servers are young people, and they have little choice in the matter. If 
they quit, they aren't eligible for benefits in the first place. If they 
change jobs, most likely they will work in a different place that allows 
smoking.

Hell, we have people with PhDs applying to be motel desk clerks. How can 
you expect a server at a bar to get a job that doesn't involve serving 
at a bar?

>(3) Fund studies to learn WHY people smoke, and how to provide
>    them with healthier alternatives that scratch the same
>    itches.  We've got some great research centers in Oregon;
>    use them!  Manufacturing such alternatives could be a new
>    source of employment in Oregon.
>  
>
So spend more money... That's real constructive. We don't have enough 
money now. Enacting this ban has the potential to INCREASE revenue (just 
think if we had a sales tax... revenue for the state could go up!) and 
you tell them not to do that, instead, spend more on a study.

My opinion is that studies are overrated.

Oh, and for the record... People smoke because they are addicted to 
nicotine. It gives them a buzz. It feels good. Study over.

>Pushing smokers out of their preferred haunts, and out among
>the rest of us, will hurt them and it will hurt us.  It will
>eliminate tax-paying businesses, it will put people out of work,
>it will create more angry voters, and it will blind us to the
>positive solutions ( like (3) above ) that are available with
>a little effort.
>  
>
Ahem... history has proven this argument wrong. See NYC comment above.

>I realize you have some vocal constituents that want you to
>punish smokers for not kowtowing to said constituent's desires.
>Please redirect their misanthropy towards research and helping
>smokers quit.  Like the secondhand smoke they worry so much
>about, "secondhand legislation" can hurt the people they claim
>to want to protect.
>  
>
As a former smoker, I can honestly say that if they want to quit, they 
can. I smoked for 18 years, and just decided one day that I'd had 
enough. Haven't bought another pack or taken another drag since, and 
it's been nearly 10 years.

Smokers can smoke at home, in their cars, or any other place where they 
don't interfere with anyone elses air. If I smell smoke, they need to go 
away.

Russ