Don’t you hate it when you jest about something happening and it (vaguely) comes true? Early last summer, I envisioned New Orleans of the future as a Venice of some sort and look what happened. Not funny.
Will wonders ever cease? The Louisana senate has just approved a smoking ban in all restaurants.
[Sen. Rob Marionneaux, D-Livonia] cited several polls conducted by anti-smoking groups showing that a majority of residents in Louisiana’s cities support such a ban. “Let’s afford our citizens the right to have dinner with their families without the bother of second-hand smoke,” [he] said .
The measure passed on a 36-2 vote. Sens. Heulette “Clo” Fontenot, R-Livingston, and Max Malone, R-Shreveport, opposed the bill, which now moves to the House … If the bill becomes law, smoking would be outlawed in restaurants beginning in 2007.
Several thoughts:
a) This good turn makes up for this bad one,
b) If the hurricanes don’t kill us, second-hand smoke will. If Louisiana’s chefs want us to gulp down a c.c. of smoke with every helping of awesome deliciousness, they’d add nicotine to their recipes, and
c) Before you grab the pitchfork, smoking will still be allowed in “bars and casinos, cigar shops, and hotel and motel rooms.”
I hope Jim Jarmusch doesn’t hold my dislike of smoking against me. If it makes him feel any better, I can’t live without coffee.
FINALLY! I remember that smoking in restaurants was one thing I could not get over while traveling between California and living in Louisiana. If this becomes law, I may just have to return for a visit in 2007. :)
Wow. Louisiana was the last place I expected this particular bit of obnoxious nanny statism to be popular. Apologies, Maitri, but though I also dislike smoking, I don’t feel it is any of the government’s business.
Apologies back, Dave, but if the state has an army and police force to enforce my safety, it can also put forth a law that keeps me from being killed by the thoughtlessness of others who don’t care for their own lungs. Anti-smoking laws should be as stringent as DWI/DUI laws.
Besides, nanny statism has already been exhibited in the anti-abortion law.
I don’t understand this equating smoking with “killing.” It’s just a wee bit over-the-top, you know. No one is forced to go into a smoky bar or restaurant, and as they are private property, it ought to be up to the owners to decide whether or how much smoking they allow on the premises. It
I hate abortion debates, but I nevertheless have to note abortion definitely *is* killing, in the sense that you take something alive and making it not-alive. Make what you want of the ramifications, but this point is certainly clear.
As for the army and police force to enforce your safety… they are mostly there to enforce the state’s safety. In any case, “the state exerts force in area A therefore it’s ok for it to exert force in area b” could be used to justify anything, so I don’t find it persuasive.
In other words, let’s just say I quite disagree with you. :)
P.S. I don’t know if it’s just me, but when I comment my text rolls well out of the comment box before it wraps, which means I type blind and make lots of mistakes (see above). Does this happen to anyone else? I’m using IE.
Dave,
Disagree away.
So, why do DUI/DWI laws exist? You drink and then drive your personal property, may or may not crash into someone, may or may not kill someone. Smoking in an area frequented by other people is just as thoughtless. If you want to smoke and tar up your lungs, fine. Don’t pull my chest cavity into it as well. Also, if you can’t independently be civilized in that manner, I don’t feel bad for the state saying No.
Abortion is bad because it’s killing something perfectly viable, but worse is bringing an unwanted child into the world. What kind of life is that?
Stop using IE – get Firefox. :-) I have the same wrapping problem when using IE.