Issues on Tobacco Legislation
It is indeed exciting that we are finally going to get a tobacco law passed and I would like to thank everyone who has struggled to make this a reality. I would like to, constructively, point out that I feel there are a couple of areas that may have been watered down too much in this final draft of the bill.
First the exemption of outdoor bars and restaurant areas is a concern. To me this seems a bit unusual. Why is it ok for me to eat or have a drink indoors and not be bothered by smoke but outdoors I do not have the same protection?
Anyone who has sat down wind from a smoker knows that being outdoors does not eliminate the problem of second hand smoke. This will mean that the nonsmokers, to be assured to dine smoke free, will be relegated to doing so indoors.
Also consider this question, should my right to be smoke free be less at an outdoor restaurant than it is at an outdoor park?
Right now one of my favorite spots is an outdoor establishment it is now likely to become a “haven” for smokers. Smoking sections outdoors will work no better than they did indoors in keeping nonsmokers and employees free from the hassle of smoke. Also another thing to be considered is the question whether cigars will be allowed in the above mentioned outdoor bar and restaurant areas?
My other concern is the exemption for Cigar Bars. I say let them have their cigars but not cigarettes. If this is not to be changed there needs to be a very strict definition of what a “Cigar Bar” is. They should be separately licensed and regulated to assure that this does not become a loop hole in the law
I very much fear that if this is not done many establishments will declare themselves Cigar Bars just to be able to allow smoking. There needs to be strong regulations in this regard or I feel certain it will get out of hand.
I am sure there is pressure from the restaurant and bar industry as well as others lobbying for the least effective legislation possible. I think this is an important enough of an issue to make sure we get it right the first time and make sure whatever is settled on does in fact have “teeth” in it. Otherwise we are not really moving forward but just giving lip service to the issue.
Again my thanks to all who have helped to get us to this stage and those who will continue the work necessary to make any legislation meaningful.
Category: Viewpoint
I am a "considerate-while-drinking" smoker. I do not wish to "inflict" anything upon anyone. If smoking is banned in regular bars, no problemo to me if a "cigar bar" is available. To a nice smoke-filled cigar bar I will go to congregate and conflagrate with my fellow cancer-candidates and my social life will continue as usual.
You see, I enjoy smoking while I drink and simply do not wish to give that up any more than your average obese person would pass on the gravy and mash potatoes. While on that subject: As I read the impressive health and mortality statistics it becomes clear that we should seriously consider supporting legislation to crack down on gluttony and obesity, and not just stop at smoking.
An abundance of studies all say the same thing "Obesity is an epidemic that will soon be responsible for more deaths every year than any other preventable cause of death". Amazing! It is predicted that obesity will overtake smoking as #1preventable cause of death. This presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to act now before that happens and stamp out fat’s insidious spread by enacting appropriate legislation with some teeth for a change. ( I am not so sure but I think that could be a pun?)
Health and mortality statistics support anti-obesity measures as a very sound and wise idea that will save millions of lives annually, save millions more from serious disability and, moreover, ease the burden on the health care system and lessen health and life insurance premiums for everyone. It makes sense economically, it makes sense morally and it makes sense logically. Why wait until obesity DOES become a #1 killer? Why sit idly by while our land gets heavier and unhealthier? Why wait until more die? For once why not be pro-active and take steps now to eradicate this killer from our country?
I’m a smoker, however, there are different types of smokers – considerate, inconsiderate, pack-a-day, only when I drink, etc. As a result, to protect the non-smokers who deal with our addiction, I’m generally in favour of legislation – banning it indoors and out seems fair – I don’tknow how you can discriminate between being exposed to it indoors vs out – exposure is exposure. I respect that.
I would also surmise that people go to restaurants and bars (whether they be indoors or out) for the primary purpose of eating and/or drinking. Smokers won’t stop going (I know I won’t), but non-smokers may start to go (many of my friends with asthma, allergies, or just don’t want to be exposed to it would go). One would think that businesses would be positively affected. Sure, it’ll inconveniene me a bit, however, let’s get on with it, the facts are in, it’s my bad habit, we know the health risks, etc, etc, so why should those who don’t have the bad habit need to suffer as well – if they’re going somewhere where the primary purpose is to eat/drink. I respect that as well.
When it comes to Cigar bars, I appreciate that the legislation needs to be ironclad to avoid any loopholes, but let’s get real – the primary purpose is to go and smoke – arguably cigars, however, there aren’t many Cigar smokers who are offended by a cigarette smoker – pretty hypocritical if they are as far as I’m concerned.
It seems to me, by your reasoning, that someone who smokes should not be allowed to do so anywhere possibly adjacent to someone who does not smoke, whether this be inside an enclosed building or outside in an open space. As smoking is not illegal, this makes one wonder where would a smoker smoke? I would say , if what you suggest be added to the law, then why not make smoking tobacco products illegal in the Cayman Islands? As we are now a tourist destination of only the rich, why not make a destination of only the rich nonsmokers? Most major countries have imposed smoking bans in public places, for the good of the public health. Indoor areas can and will concentrate second hand smoke that will harm the other people in that space, either seperated or not. However, when you propose that the outdoors should be off limits you are saying, MAKE SMOKING ILLEGAL. In every major country that I have seen the ban put into effect, smokers are asked to go outside to smoke, then they can return indoors. In many large cities in the US, New York, Miami, LA it was supposed to be the end of people going out to restaurants and clubs. Moving the smokers outside was seen as an impossibility in the UK, yet it happened. The pubs are as full as they where before, now nobody smokes inside. You want to smoke, go out in the cold, go stand in the rain, no smoking inside. There are few establishments that are in the restraurant industry that would want to try to use this "loophole". Look at every restaurant and bar in the US and UK. If they do not have an outdoor area, there is a area by there front door that has a bench or benches with a smoking can or poll right there. The only problem we wil face is in the area of the night clubs, who will want there patrons to be able to smoke. If the government puts the law in such a way that you must provide proof that you are a "cigar bar", then we will have no problem.
Only my thoughts…………
Tobacco or HEALTH
Smokers tend to argue that everyone should be treated equally.
"Their" right to smoke is equal to "our" right to breathe fresh air.
As a result, it seems that we non-smokers will soon have the opportunity to keep on trying to avoid smoke in "Cigar Bars" (however ubiquitous they suddenly become), avoid smoke down on the beach, or avoid smoke in outdoor restaurants.
Smokers naturally extend their argument of equality to standard heath care provision.
Smokers will continue to inflict their antisocial habit and opinions of equality on the rest of us, until one day, when their time eventually comes, and they will eagerly occupy a hospital bed, wheezing about the interminable pain of their self-inflicted illness… stretching public health resources beyond their limits, and happily denying reallocation of doctors, surgeons, nurses and essential equipment and medial funds and facilities – limited resources which could have otherwise been put to use saving the life of an innocent traffic accident victim or a premature baby.
Yup… every dollar spent on a smoker could have been spent on someone who ended up in hospital by accident.
Personally, I don’t think I could live with myself…