Temperance on the Rise in South Dakota Part 1
South Dakota has gone a long way since the 1980s when we were the last state to hold out on the 18 year old drinking-- going so far as to take the issue to the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole. This entry will focus on what appears to be a revival of Temperence-ish attitude in South Dakota. Specifically we will look at a proposed public cigarete ban, alcohol tax increase, and the Vermillion underage drinking crackdown.
The Argus Leader reports here that anti-smoking advocates are working on a smoking ban to introduce in the state legislature in January. According to one source the ban would include indoor public smoking in places such as restaraunts and bars. This would be in line with a national trend-- 22 states have comprehensive indoor smoking bans.
The theory behind the ban is that second hand smoke harms public health-- the article sites statistics that one who works or lives in a place with secondhand smoke is 25% more likely to develop lung cancer and up to 30% more likely to develop heart disease. This is bad for children who go to smoking restaraunts but espescially bad for employees at bars and restaraunts who have to constantly inhale the smoke.
On the other side is freedom. Parents shouldn't bring their kids to restaraunts that allow smoking-- that's called voting with your $$. If enough parents did this, businesses would be forced to go smoke free on their own or family-friendly businesses would open to fill the niche. People can choose not to work in smoking bars-- if there was a shortage of people willing to work this would increase the wages of workers who are exposed to 2nd hand smoke which would make up for the hazard or force the bar to be smoke free. Shouldn't individuals be able to make up their mind without the heavy hand of Uncle Sam dictating our personal choices?
When you stand back and look at the bigger picture it seems to be an issue of security (health) and freedom-- those two are always at odds, huh? This isn't really a partisan issue either; I'm sure support and opposition will be mixed between the two parties. Personally I am more sympathetic to the "personal choice" argument because I hate it when the government tells us what personal decision to make; I do see validity in the public health argument though so I certainly respect the argument. Anyway, it is an important issue though and an interesting movement so I thought I would spend some time blogging about it. Be on the look out for Part 2!
Hey--
So here is my take on the health side of the issue.
I'm allergic to smoke. More then just being annoying for me, it makes me cough a lot, my eyes water, and I have trouble breathing. Mostly this is just when smoke is directly around me such as a person sitting right next to me blowing it in my face. I, therefore, always sit in nonsmoking sections and rarely go out to bars because most bars do not have the non-smoking sections. I have had one horrible reaction to smoke. It was in England where the tobaco is less refined as I understand it but that means the smell is stronger (I'm not really sure about the logistics of it). That happened after I walked by some friends (about 10) who had been smoking inside (which was legal) and all smelled strongly of it. I couldn't breath all night and had to go to the doctor the next day (and used the NHS first hand, but that's for another post). It was really scary. The bottom line is--I'd like to go out more and have fun but it is hard when I have to deal with the health issues associated with it.
Posted by greatbrittany on October 09, 2007 at 12:01 AM CDT #
You have a good point. Which is why I'm not passionate in my libertarian stance on this issue. Its kind of interesting how everyone's point of view seems to be tempered by their own personal experiences, huh? Which is probably why Bush vetoed SCHIP-- I'm sure he's never actually had to worry about himself or any of his children going without health insurance.
Posted by Tetris on October 09, 2007 at 12:18 PM CDT #