I would like to respond to the representative's comments in a recent article that "smoking rules could be worked out among office colleagues and did not need to be set by the government." This is an interesting idea, but as any waitress, bartender or other professional who has worked around smokers will tell you, it doesn't work.
While living in Michigan, I was pregnant and shared an office and car with a chain smoker for most of a year. Despite pleas to my agency director and co-workers, I was told that this was only a concern of comfort and, as it turned out, "smokers' rights" prevailed.
My job, and my health insurance, seemed at the time like a necessity. This was 1988 and the health effects of secondhand smoke were not so widely known.
Eight weeks after birth, my son died with a lung disorder of "unknown origin" and shortly thereafter the office became smoke-free. When we leave employees to "work it out" among themselves, the younger, lower-income, uninsured and service workers invariably are left most vulnerable.
Our government responsibly sets standards for businesses on building codes, food sanitation and fair labor laws -- smoking is no different.
Mary Gillett
Greensboro
Comments (3)
Mary,
My most sincere sympathies for the loss of your son. As a mother, I think losing a child is the worst nightmare I can imagine.
It is scientific face SIDS occurs more frequently in babies whose mother's either smoke or are exposed to smoke. Or when there is smoking in the baby's environment. Even if SIDS does not occur, babies/children who are exposed to SHS are more than twice as likely to develop asthma or some other breathing difficulties.
For years I was outspoken about smoking in the workplace. It was not until I refused to go into a small 5'x6' room for report from the off-going shift (and close the door no less) that smoking was ban from the report room. Next came the bathroom. I was adament that I did not have to patronize the breakroom but I did have to go to the bathroom. Surprisingly, even the smokers voted to use the breakroom for their vile habit.
What I found out was, when a person knows you personally, most of the time they are aware of your particular health needs (I had had part of my right lung removed.) and respect your stand. Otherwise, they could care less about lighting up in front of you. Most believe it is their "right" to do so. Fortunately, there are no such rights.
Smokers have been left on their own to do as they please since the first cigarette was made. In all that time, most have demanded the privilege to light up where ever they wanted. Their lack of concern, not only for their own health but also for the health of others, has brought us to this stand-off. In other words, they brought it on themselves.
As you said, the government makes rules and regulations to protect the public re building codes, food services, health services, etc, so why not a ban on public smoking. It is the only thing that makes sense.
Posted by Yvonne![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 31, 2007 9:10 AM
"Their lack of concern, not only for their own health but also for the health of others, has brought us to this stand-off. In other words, they brought it on themselves."
Not to mention, smokers are the worst offenders when it comes to littering along our streets. Yvonne, your post is a good one, but just wait for "The Village Idiot" to weigh in with terms like "nanny state" and "sheep" and "liberals" etc.
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 31, 2007 11:21 AM
Let's see:
Your son died but they don't know why.
You thought your job was a necessity but it wasn't.
So what does this have to do with smoking in restaurants?
Posted by nitpicker![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 2, 2007 1:10 PM