The Ol’ Dirty Emerald issued an editorial two days ago against the statewide ban on smoking in workplaces that went into effect on the 1st. Seriously. And it wasn’t even all that wishy-washy. Check it out:

Cigarette smoke is undoubtedly bad for one’s health, and people should not be forced to breathe it in when they want to go out for a drink. But couldn’t there be some middle ground? Banning smoking from all but a few public places could seriously damage bar owners’ and others’ business, and is a decision that should be left up to the owners’ control. In order to curb smoking, the state could offer tax breaks to smoke-free establishments, rather than taking the most restrictive course possible. Let’s not forget that if an individual wishes to avoid secondhand smoke, he or she can simply choose not to go to establishments where smoking is allowed.

Aw, I didn’t think you guys had it in you – what with your embrace of novel concepts like “individual choice” “business” and all. Of course, the first comment on the online version makes me weep a little bit for humanity:

[sic]once again the poor victim is being abused. the smoker who won’t acknowledge the health cost of their vice for themselves or the people who are forced to exist near their areas of smoking. the smokers could have stopped, could have stopped tossing their butts anywhere, could have had establishments designate areas and require air systems but no they would rather demand freedom to kill themselves and others.
i am sorry i won’t feel sorry for smokers who are being inconvienced.  and if any smoker doesn’t like it have a cold and then walk into you living area and see how your world smells to others [/sic]

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 8th, 2009 at 12:09 by CJ Ciaramella and is filed under Campus, Law, Media, Ol' Dirty Emerald, Oregon. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.