Thursday, June 23, 2005
Schwartz' genius
It is a rare day when I praise a member of the DC city council, but "mad props" to our crazy city's lone Republican (if in name only) member. Carol Schwartz proposed (and then quickly withdrew) a bill to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages in DC bars. The legislation was meant to draw attention to the city's plan to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Schwartz was dripping with sarcasm in her remarks.
Really, this is pure genius. Her mock bill highlights the utter stupidity of the proposed ban. Don't get me wrong, as a non-smoker I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and do enjoy not smelling like smoke after a night of drinking in New York City bars, where a ban has been in place for a couple of years under Nurse Bloomberg. But, last I checked, cigarettes were still legal in this country, and a not-entirely insignificant aspect of the bar experience for many is the ability to light up and sip some suds.
The only real difference between drinking and smoking is that there is no such thing as passive beer drinking. But my preference not to smell like an ashtry should not trump another's choice to light up and smoke, especially considering that I have the ability to go somewhere else, and in this city there are hundreds of bars that have banned smoking. The decision whether or not to permit smoking should be left up to the individual establishments, and clients can then make their choice from there. An absolute ban is a ridiculoius intrusion by the nanny state because they deem a legal behavior uncouth.
Tough. If you don't like smoking that much, go somewhere else. If a person chooses to enhance their chances of acquiring cancer, that is their decision. Since recent studies have demonstrated that the actual health risks of passive smoking have been completely exaggerated, there remains no substantive reason why my dislike of an activity should mandate that a person not engage in such activity, especially when I have the right and ability to be somewhere else.
The only reasonable counter-argument is that the bill is meant to protect workers, but bartenders and others know their profession, and they are free to pursue another career or work in establishments that ban smoking.
Thank you, Carol Schwartz. It's good to know at least one member of the city's governing body has something resembling a brain.
"People are still free to drink at home -- for now," she said as she introduced her bill, the Worker Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Act of 2005, Part II. "I'm just legislating that liquor cannot be served in bars, restaurants and nightclubs because I don't want it to be served. I will allow teas, sodas and milk -- for now. And if the drinkers insist on drinking alcohol -- and they will -- they can just step outside on sidewalks with their flasks and drink."Schwartz for mayor!
[edit]
. . ."We all know that bartenders and waitstaff are constantly harassed by drinking customers. Bouncers are even beaten up by drunks. I care about these workers and their safety," Schwartz said, while her colleagues chuckled and hid their faces in their hands.
"Yes, I come to you a changed woman," Schwartz said, her voice oozing sarcasm. "It had just never occurred to me that I could simply choose to ban a legal choice for consenting adults in a private place where the public does not have to go and where workers do not have to work.
"I'm also now looking at some other legal choices to ban -- like driving or sex -- for they, too, can be dangerous to your health and the health of others."
Really, this is pure genius. Her mock bill highlights the utter stupidity of the proposed ban. Don't get me wrong, as a non-smoker I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and do enjoy not smelling like smoke after a night of drinking in New York City bars, where a ban has been in place for a couple of years under Nurse Bloomberg. But, last I checked, cigarettes were still legal in this country, and a not-entirely insignificant aspect of the bar experience for many is the ability to light up and sip some suds.
The only real difference between drinking and smoking is that there is no such thing as passive beer drinking. But my preference not to smell like an ashtry should not trump another's choice to light up and smoke, especially considering that I have the ability to go somewhere else, and in this city there are hundreds of bars that have banned smoking. The decision whether or not to permit smoking should be left up to the individual establishments, and clients can then make their choice from there. An absolute ban is a ridiculoius intrusion by the nanny state because they deem a legal behavior uncouth.
Tough. If you don't like smoking that much, go somewhere else. If a person chooses to enhance their chances of acquiring cancer, that is their decision. Since recent studies have demonstrated that the actual health risks of passive smoking have been completely exaggerated, there remains no substantive reason why my dislike of an activity should mandate that a person not engage in such activity, especially when I have the right and ability to be somewhere else.
The only reasonable counter-argument is that the bill is meant to protect workers, but bartenders and others know their profession, and they are free to pursue another career or work in establishments that ban smoking.
Thank you, Carol Schwartz. It's good to know at least one member of the city's governing body has something resembling a brain.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 12:23 PM
