From The Past: April 16, 2009

You would think since the smoking ban went into effect in Winchester on January 12th, there would be no more discussion. However, here we are in the middle of April and people continue to fume and want to debate the issue. Smokers are livid. The following is the most recent letter to the editor I have read.

From The Winchester Sun Letters to the editor for April 14:

Should health board regulate being fat?

To the Sun:

    In the Opinion section of March 17, Randy Patrick made the statement, “It is the responsibility of the Health Department to regulate public health hazards in the work place and public places,” which leaves the door wide open for, well, almost anything the Health Department might believe it has the power to do or just simply chooses to.

What if they declared being obese is a public health hazard, not even considering the medical costs associated. Let us assume for one moment, this being the case, the Health Department begins regulating obese people, and of course they would determine who is obese, by not allowing them in restaurants that serve buffets nor to let them eat large meals or desserts. Does he believe the obese and restaurant owners would just stand by and let the Health Department pass such a law?

 What if they said drinking alcoholic beverages and beer are public health hazards? Then the Health Department declared that no more alcoholic drink or beer be sold to anyone, as they might stumble and fall down, hurting themselves and creating medical costs.

Those persons might get behind the wheel of an auto and drive on public streets, which are certainly public places. Does he believe the businesses that serve alcohol would stand by and let the Health Department pass such a law?

 What if they declared a law that no vehicle be driven more than one mile per hour on roads in Clark County, which are certainly public places, as we all know that driving too fast is a public health hazard.

 How about having them to require all vehicles to have a governor to ensure that it could not exceed the one-mile-per hour limit? Does he believe the vehicle manufacturers, car dealers and certainly, the drivers of this county would stand by and let the Health Department pass such a law?

 Well this list could and might go on and on if the answer is to let the Health Department “regulate public health hazards in the work place and public places” as Mr. Patrick, from his statement, seems to advocate.

 If the Health Department truly cares about the public and those who own their businesses, then let them pass a law that states no one who wishes to breathe secondhand smoke be admitted in any business or building which allows it.

 The county officials can end this now by putting it on the ballot and see if the citizens of Clark County pass it or not. It’s simple. The Declaration of Independence states that if any form of government (Health Department) becomes destructive to the rights of the people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the people (of Clark County ) have the right to override them by voting on the issue.

Keep the Health Department from overstepping its boundaries before they expand to “regulate public health hazards in the work place and public places.”

Donnie Riddell

Winchester

It is my opinion that Mr. Riddell is missing the entire point of the smoking ban. The responsibility of the Health Department is to regulate public health hazards. Eating, drinking, and driving are not really health hazards to the public at large. When a smoker lights a cigarette, they are not only harming themselves, they are also harming those people around them. It is childish to even try to compare the smoke which a cigarette emits to how much a person eats. Not only are other diners being hurt, but think of the employees who have to inhale someone’s cigarette smoke all day long.

If I want to eat three plates full of food, this is not harming you, Mr. Riddell. If I want to eat the big brownie dessert topped with ice cream, this is not harming you, Mr. Riddell. If I decide to drink a Margarita, this is not harming you, Mr. Riddell. If I decide to drive a few miles over the speed limit but operate in a safe manner, this is not harming you, Mr. Riddell. But if I choose to smoke, it IS harming you and anyone else who happens to be in the area. The examples you gave on drinking alcoholic beverages and driving are completely off base and not at all related to the issue of public health. Notice I did not say public safety. We already have laws regulating the public safety in those areas and they are not controlled by the Health Department.

This ban was put in place to protect those of us who do not smoke. When someone is smoking near me and my nose begins to burn, my throat starts to hurt, this IS damaging me. These people don’t care whose bodies they are hurting just as long as they get their nicotine fix.

I do think I have a solution for smokers though. It is called the Electronic Cigarette.

The website claims:

“What makes Electronic Cigarettes different from (and according to smokers who have switch, better than) traditional smoking is the fact that they contain no tar, no harmful chemicals, no cancer causing agents, is not a combustible product and can be smoked in places where cigarette smoking is prohibited.”

“SmokeAnywhere creates a vapor mist that simulates the action of traditional smoking. While using the electronic cigarette the vapor replicates the oral action of smoking. With our product there is no second hand smoke so you can take it and virtually SmokeAnywhere acceptable.”

Their website has testimonials, videos, a FAQ section, articles, and much more. If you are one of these angry people who have been banned from smoking in restaurants and other public places, I would suggest you take a look at this site. The starter kit is $75, but you’re going to spend that on a few cartons of cigarettes anyway.