Smoking ban affects rights of business owners
The proposed London smoking ban is more than just a public health issue. The ban goes too far in affecting the rights of business owners. Is smoking unhealthy? Yes. Is smoking illegal? No. It seems like government agencies enjoy receiving tax revenue from the sale of tobacco, but are concerned about the smoker’s health and encourage them to stop smoking. Kind of a double standard here. What would the government do if no one bought tobacco and the tax money dried up?
If no one is allowed to smoke 20 or 25 feet in front of a public building, then no one could smoke outside in downtown London. Reason being, all the buildings downtown are public buildings and you can’t move 20 or 25 feet without being in front of another public building. Has anyone thought about how this will affect the World Chicken Festival and will the smoking police be out in force?
If our local restaurants do not want smoking in their facility, then go buy a $1.50 “No Smoking” sign.
I do not smoke. I have also worked for many years in health care. I just believe it is ironic that a community whose agricultural base for over 100 years has been tobacco would be even considering a smoking ban. Does that mean you can’t even light up in the tobacco warehouse if the ordinance passes? I also find it ironic that a city council member whose family profited from the tobacco farmers for decades in this community would even consider the proposal of a smoking ban. The tobacco farmers do have the option of boycotting any business that does not support them or their enterprise.
Business owners have the right to determine whether or not they should allow smoking on their property. Smokers and non-smokers have a right to patronize the business that has smoking or not.
Copyright © 2009 Thetimestribune
