with Auren Hoffman
February 24 - March 2, 1997
|
No Smoking!
anti-smoking doesn't always right the wrong by Auren Hoffman
The People's Republic of Berkeley strikes again. A few weeks ago, the City of Berkeley (California) extended its city-wide ban on smoking to include bars, pubs, and clubs. Imagine going to a bar and seeing someone dragged off to jail because they tried to light a cigarette. Berkeley, a city that is largely populated by students, seems to be working in direct contrast to the wants of its constituency. Now I don't smoke, I don't like when others smoke, and I do not enjoy breathing second hand smoke. I support smoking bans on airplanes, general public places, and in constraining enclosed areas. But I am willing to take the risk when I go to a bar or pub. Smoking is part of the atmosphere. Imagine a cigar bar without the cigars... The City of Berkeley's logic justifying the ban is to protect employees from breathing deadly second hand smoke. Though the compassion is admirable, the ban will cause lay-offs because revenue will decrease. Many Berkeley bars are already seeing a steady migration of students to bars in nearby towns and cities like San Francisco and Oakland. When these employees (that the city claims it is trying to protect) lose their job, what will the city do? Increase welfare? The City of Berkeley's position is disingenuous. Sticking up for workers who might be breathing second hand fumes is just a smoke screen to further a more government-controls-your-life agenda. People who work in bars do so because they want to. In today's economy, they could easily get jobs in other places - but they choose to work in bars because the hours are flexible, the pay is good, and the atmosphere is lively. Some people chose to work in bars because it was one of the last places in Berkeley where one can enjoy a cigarette. There a plenty of jobs more dangerous than working in a bar. Toll booth operators breath in at least ten times the amount of toxic fuels everyday - but the City of Berkeley is not concerned with their cancer causing employment. With the high crime rate in Berkeley, owning a small store or being an employee in a Seven Eleven probably a lot more dangerous and life threatening then hanging out in a friendly tavern. But the City of Berkeley doesn't care about these folks. So what is going to happen to these bar patrons that smoke? Are they going to stop smoking when they enjoy a beer? Perhaps. But more likely, these patrons are just going to drive to out-of-town bars. Fine with the Berkeley City Council. Instead of walking to local pubs, these patrons (mostly students) are going to be drinking and then driving to bars where they can sit down, relax, and have a smoke. Even students that don't smoke will probably join their friends at these out-of-town excursions. I cannot see how encouraging drinking and driving is a good policy. Another unintended, potentially terrifying consequence. In its rush to right every wrong and bring justice to the souls that cannot defend themselves, the City of Berkeley made an well intentioned but terribly policy. Most bureaucratic policies, including this one, fail to see the practicality behind making new laws. Frequently this is because many laws cause more harm than good. In the case of the City's latest blunder, Berkeley is encouraging lay-offs, drinking and driving, and bad business.
|
Past Summations
About the Author
About Summation
The Fans
The Links
|
Gotta problem? Contact Auren
Copyright © 1995, 1996, 1997 Auren Hoffman. All Rights Reserved