Ban will protect the public
When I read your editorial "Good Compromise on Smoking Ban," I thought you were kidding. I am aware that Rep. Miller is trying to get some legislation passed but fear that this proposal if passed will become an excuse to defeat comprehensive legislation.
Your assertion that a ban "diminishes the rights of owners to run their establishments as they so choose" is ridiculous. This is not a "choice" issue ... it's a health issue. Bars and restaurants are regulated to protect public health. To eliminate rodents they cannot simply get a cat. A ban on serving liquor to minors is one of many regulations.
To comment on this letter, click on "Comments" below
The argument that manufacturers "emit harnful pollutants" so cigarette smoke should be allowed may be logical to you but it is insane. If that were applied to all cases Love Canal would still be killing children and landfills would be allowed to pollute our water. EPA would not exist.
Do you think OSHA would allow manufacturers that expose employees to a Class 1 carcinogen -- which is what cigarette smoke is -- to tell them " If you don't like it you can quit" even with unemployment compensation?
To those who claim a ban would cause bars to close; one year after the New York ban, receipts were up and air pollution was down. New Jersey and Massachusetts have bans. Do you believe there are no bars in Brooklyn, Jersey City or Boston?
I urge you to support Senate Bill 246 voted out of committee 26-0 with Sen.Waugh's support and House Bill 1541 referred to Health and Human Services Committee, co-sponsored by Rep. Depasquale.
These are true Clean Public Air Acts.
Barbara Wills
Manchester Township
Leave a comment