Fight for your right ... to smoke?

Okay … to start with … I’m not a smoker … I’ve smoked a couple cigars, sure, but I’ve never smoked a cigarette and I don’t regularly smoke anything. My wife used to be a smoker but gave up that habit some … oh it’s been more than 6 years, and probably closer to 10 since she gave it up. In general I don’t think that smokers are the brightest bulbs in the light string, but I have to say it’s their right to kill themselves if they so desire.

‘What the heck are you rambling on about Klik?’ is what you’re probably asking right about now…. Georgia’s Governor, Sonny Perdue, signed a bill into law this week that Bans smoking in all public areas … and I believe within a certain distance of any public building. (By public building I mean any building into which the public can enter ... so stores, malls, restaurants, bars, etc.)

Am I dead set against this law? No, but I can’t say that I agree with it either, because I don’t believe that it is an appropriate use of the powers of government. If it is a building that the public HAS to visit (court houses, driver’s license office, things of that nature) then I think that it is fine to pass a law banning smoking in those areas. However, I believe that, in any establishment that the public has the option of entering, the choice of rather to allow smoking or not allow smoking should be the option of the owners of the establishment.

If the owners of an establishment that I frequent choose to allow smoking within their establishment, then I, as a non-smoker, have to decide if I want to continue going there or not. I should not, however, have the right to put a gun to the owners head and say “No … you won’t allow smoking in here.” … which is, in essence, what passing such legislation is. It is Non-smokers trying to force smokers and business owners to cater to them and treat smokers as second class citizens.

If you want to pass a law stating that business that allow smoking must put up big red signs at all entry ways that state that they allow smoking, that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with requiring that the public be informed so that they can make their decisions to enter or not on all the relevant information. Heck, you can even require the sign to state the dangers of second hand smoke if you want, but I don’t think that the government should be able to tell a business owner what they can or can’t do in their business with regards to smoking.

To be completely fair to the law it does provide an exemption for bars and restaurants that do not employ or serve anyone under 18 years of age. Still though, if a business wants to cater to smokers, and can operate a profitable business doing so, why should the government tell them that they can’t do that? Oh … that’s right … they want to protect us … they want to make sure that we don’t get injured in some way … soon they’ll be rolling out the padding for the walls and doors and putting fences up dividing the sidewalk from the road so that pedestrians don’t accidentally step out in front of moving cars …..

I’m sorry … it is not the government’s job to hold my hand and make sure that nothing bad happens to me. If you want that from the government then there are places that I believe that you can go to be committed.

There’s another issue in Georgia with smokers, however, where I DO agree with the way that it’s being handled. Georgia state employees that smoke are having their health insurance premiums raised by $40 a month more than non-smokers. (They are doing the smoker/non-smoker thing on the honor system, but if you are caught lying about your smoking status then you loose ALL health coverage for a year.)

In general, smokers get sick more often, need more frequent and more expensive medical treatment, and have other workplace related issues. In short having one smoker on a company health insurance policy can raise the premiums of every employee by quite a bit. It is their choice to smoke … if they don’t want to pay $40 more a month for health care then guess what … they can stop smoking. Hell … chances are pretty good with most smokers that they can save enough to cover that $40 a month just by cutting their cigarette use back.

Is it their right to smoke if they want? Sure it is. But there is nothing that is forcing them to smoke … it is a choice … if they make the choice to smoke, then they can pay the price. Everyone is responsible for the choices they make … and everyone has to face the consequences of those choices, be they good or bad.

Personally I believe that any employer should not only have the right to put more of the cost of the health coverage on those in the company who choose to make that coverage cost more. I will even go so far as to say that it should be the employers right to refuse to employ someone that smokes or refuse to include them in the company health coverage …. As long as such a rule is employed fairly in all cases (meaning that smoker_a and smoker_b are both denied employment due to their smoking habit and if the rule is put into place in a work place that has a mix of smokers and non-smokers then the smokers should be given a reasonable deadline to quit the habit.)

Some people are concerned that this would be used as a precedent to raise the rates or deny coverage to others with existing conditions. My answer to that is … if the existing conditions are the result of a choice and are ‘quitable’ then I don’t see where the problem is.

My choices are my responsibility … nobody else’s … Your choices are YOUR responsibility … nobody else’s.

It's about responsibility

Okay there are a couple of stories that have prompted this particular entry and I’ll discuss them individually.

First … the case of the local ‘runaway bride’ … for those that don’t know the story: A local woman, Jennifer, was supposed to be married to her fiancé on Saturday April 30th. On Tuesday, April 26th, Jennifer went for her nightly run and never returned. State and Local police (and eventually federal police) looked for her and on Saturday she called ‘911’ in New Mexico claiming to have been abducted. After about 4 hours she changed her story and said that she had just ‘snapped’ and hopped on a greyhound bus to run away from it all. It has since been reported that the bus ticket was purchased roughly a week in advance of her disappearance.

The search cost the county an estimated $60,000, plus I believe that there were state funds used in addition to that amount. Local and State Law Enforcement officers were diverted from other duties in this effort. The District Attorney is looking at criminal charges and there’s a big debate as to what to do with the ‘runaway bride’. (Her family has forgiven her and her fiancé says he still wants to marry her.)

Some people say that she should be prosecuted and repay the full cost of the search as well as other penalties. Others say that she should get a ‘pass’ because she wasn’t in her rational mind and didn’t intend for all this to happen.

I think the answer here lies somewhere in the middle … as answers often do. We can’t just give her a pass because she didn’t ‘intend’ for this to happen … certainly she shouldn’t be punished as harshly as someone who intentionally caused these problems … but there are a lot of times where actions have un-intended results that can result in criminal prosecution. That she wasn’t in a rational state of mind and didn’t think of the possible consequences is, likewise, no reason to ‘give her a pass’ …. No … she has to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions, un-intended though they may have been. To do otherwise is to say that the actions are acceptable.

I believe that the only actual law that she broke was in lying to law enforcement officials so any criminal prosecution could carry a 5 year jail sentence. Now I believe that is a ‘maximum sentence’ and thus not likely what she would face in this instance. But I have to say that I don’t believe that jail time is necessary for this case … I would honestly rather have her have to put in some time at a crisis center or other similar community service. The money is another issue … I’d like to see her pay back that cost to the county … enforcing that, however, is likely an issue. Technically the money was spent at the request of the family and at a point when nothing that Jennifer had done was against the law.

To me … the best resolution for this case would be for Jennifer to come forward and workout an agreement with the DA in the case and take responsibility for her actions of her own accord.

The other case is a different side of things. At Dacula High in northern Georgia, a science teacher know to the students as ‘Doc’ (I’m too lazy to look up the story and actually get his name at the moment) has a long standing policy that students caught sleeping or otherwise not paying attention in class receive either a zero or half credit depending on the assignment. Well … Football Jock_01 fell asleep in class and *gasp* got a zero on the days assignment.

Well Mr. Jock apparently didn’t like being held responsible for falling asleep in class and complained to his father … Jock Sr. then marched down to the School Principal’s office and complained that Jock Jr. shouldn’t be given a zero for falling asleep in class and the principal agreed, and told ‘Doc’ to change the grade. Doc, however, felt that there was a principle at stake here and said that the student knew the rule and that the zero would not be changed.

Doc has been suspended for using grades to discipline students. (Okay … hold on a second … teachers can’t use grades to discipline students … they can’t physically discipline students and they can’t remove students from their classes … how exactly IS a teacher supposed to discipline their students? Harsh Language? Oh wait … no … that’s not allowed either.)

It’s a simple matter … you break the rules, you pay the price … Doc’s rule was (in essence) no sleeping in class … the price was a zero. Get off the teacher’s case and let him do his job.

It seems though that the students aren’t taking this quietly …. They have begun protesting the suspension of Doc with posters, T-Shirts, buttons and petitions aimed at getting Doc back in the classroom. At one speaking engagement when the Principal got up to the podium to speak students began loudly chanting “Doc! Doc! Doc!”

Wow … students that want a teacher that holds to his rules and applies them to everyone. Who don’t want one student to avoid his responsibility just because he’s a Jock…

Maybe there’s hope in the world after all…..