I couldn't disagree with him more.
Why not tell it like it is? HB 1683 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1683 ) is about the relentless efforts of the tabacco-related industry to enslave workers and to poison their victims in order to extract a profit from them.
Point One: Smoke does not remain within the walls of establishments, as anyone who has stood outside a bar back in the smoking days will confess. Similarly, anyone who has suffered an asthsma attack outside an industry's "smoke shack" has a valid point of reference.
Quantifying the specific risk to people in the vicinity of an establishment, however, is very difficult to do (as tobacco industry lawyers know very well). Tobacco smoke presents a case where death mongers are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is hard for the public to bear.
Profit, Misery and Death: While cigarettes, cigars etc. may be legal, they are also lethal. The cigarette lobbies will do whatever they can to open the door to more smoking, however ... and more agonizing deaths will result.
Health Cost: The health cost of tobacco to the nation is far more than any individual can bear. The public will eventually pay for their sins.
Now for the questions.
My first question to Mr. Schmick would be: Why are you so interested in protecting the rights of special interests to continue entrapping people and poisoning their lungs?
To make smoking "safe" for non-willing participants, such as employees and passersby, would be difficult indeed. Perhaps a farmer out on a tractor somewhere might smoke without noticeable harm to others, but how likely is it that such establishments will be located in areas that no-one will be inadvertently affected?
Another question: How much do you suppose would be a fair insurance settlement for a person who has an asthma attack as a result of walking past a smoking establishment?
Where does Mr. Schmick stand on capping insurance payouts? Would he cap them at the same time his public policy almost guarantees the basis of health law suits will continue?
I believe Mr. Schmick is incorrect in his implied assumption that what people do to their own physical health is no-one else's business. Society has long passed the stage where employee safety is of no concern to the public, and workers should not be able to sign away their right to a reasonably safe work environment.
Be that as it may, and aside from the aspect of human suffering (including the suffering of family members), the fact remains that the public all too often pays the health bills that result from smoking.
It does no good to try to back out by saying that the case should be otherwise, that the public should not be providing for those who are extremely ill. That argument is simply begging the question. Our society simply will not abandon people on their death beds in order to appease the drug peddlars (tobacco is a drug), even though certain lawmakers are OK with that.
Should smoking be illegal? In my opinion, the answer is "No." The private use of wild plants and naturally occuring substances should be legal. But should we encourage the use of the more harmful of them, including tobacco, with special laws such as HB 1683? No. Not in my opinion.
For more by F. Ellsworth Lockwood on this topic, please see: http://www.asthmalinks.blogspot,com/
---------------------------------------------------
For official government information about the results of smoking see:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/---------------------------------------------------
Joe Schmick is listed on the Washington .gov page as being on the following committees:
- Health Care & Wellness (ranking)
- Health & Human Services Appropriations (assistant ranking)
- Ways and Means
- Rules
End
