spoon wrote:City air quality, poor as it may be, is not uniformly carcinogenic like tobacco smoke.
Alcohol in moderation is NOT bad for you.
Tobacco smoke in moderation IS bad for you.
How is the city air quality NOT uniformly carcinogenic if tobacco smoke IS? If they both contain carcinogenic particles as mesaured in ppm, and they both constitute a health risk, why is one bad but not the other? You can more easily smell the tobacco, but they both contain carcinogenic particles. And if smoke eaters and whatnot are in place that make the quality the same, what's the problem? I'd like to see some science to back up those claims.
I would also argue that alcohol, tobacco, drugs and chocolate cake are all fine in moderation. If tobacco is so bad for everyone at all times, explain how one can smoke for 50 years without contracting lung cancer while my friend's Dad who ran marathons his whole life, was a health nut and a brilliant man, contracted brain and lung cancer and died at 72? Saying that about tobacco is not very reasoned, I think. It's more like panicy propaganda to me. Like saying Saddam was going to nuke us if we didn't attack him first.
I don't dispute the health risks associated with it, or the unpleasant smell. I dispute your claim of intensity and collateral risks. It also seems possible that some people are just more at risk of getting cancer no matter what. If you want to make everyone safe, go after all carcinogenic air quality, not just the selfish bar ban.
spoon wrote:We do have a right to good heath...one of those unalienable rights, you know "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
I would think it falls under life and pursuit of happiness ( as long as it does not cause harm to others which smoking does).
Ah yes, the Declaration of Independance. I was sure someone would refute me with this. "Life, liberty and pursuit of happines" says nothing about "HEALTH". What about my pursuit of happiness and not being told by the government what I can and cannot ingest? What about a business that would allow smoking being told they can't? What about those hookah lounges? They're out of business entirely. Are they not being barred from pursuing THEIR happiness?
Beyond that, those are rights granted against a government taking them away. If you are charged with a crime punishable by death, for example, you have a right to defend yourself and the burden of proof that would be used to take your life is on the accuser. That's your right to "life and liberty". Your right to the pursuit of happiness is to make as much money as you want. People seem to forget that the country was founded so that white property holding men could pursue business without interference from the government. I'd say this ban falls under interference from the government. It says nothing about a right to health, if it did, we would have had universal health care for the past 230 years.
spoon wrote:But remember those in the industry that have to work in this environment 3-6 days a week. Even if they do smoke, this is above and beyond OSHA levels of a hazardous work environment (I jest in this last sentence).
Regards,
spoon
Well if the ONLY job you can really find in the City Of Chicago is a bartending job (which I doubt as I've been a bartender here and know how hard it is to find those jobs) then perhaps you should consider less hazardous work. Like a Lineman for an electric company, no one makes them do the work, they take the risk because the money is good, or in the case of a "cool" bar, social prestige. I can start to buy into the hazardous work environments if you can prove to me that the people working in bars are doing so against their will, and also prove a connection between cancer and 2nd hand smoke. But no one has.
