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.