 |
Journal | Friends | Calendar | User Info | Memories |
DrachenRogue's Journal
I've been meaning to post on this topic for a while, and a recent conversation with my wife is the cause for this post… When we were up north for my sister's wedding, we headed over to MOA (as we usually do on any trip up north), and I reflected on the lack of… oh, the "entertainment district" there. Now, when the MOA opened, the fourth floor "entertainment district" contained numerous restaurants, nightclubs, and bars, to include Planet Hollywood, Al E. Gators, Fat Tuesday, Gatlin Brothers Music City USA (which was followed by a Jillian's), a comedy club, a sports bar, among other businesses. Now, the only thing in that area is Hooters.
Some people say that it's due to the mall management wanting a higher rent/lease amount, and others say it's because of Bloomington's (where MOA is located) non-smoking ordinance (which was followed by a Hennepin County ban, and most recently a statewide ban).
Now, my problem is the fact that local/state/federal governments want to legislate how/where/when people can smoke/use tobacco products by creating bans, taxes, etc. As I've mentioned in previous posts, I'm against taxing items that only a certain percentage of the population use, and am against using those taxes for groups who shouldn't be receiving the proceeds (for example, allowing illegal immigrants to use SCHIP funds).
What this also does, is that it creates job security problems on all levels - for example, and bear with me on this, as it might take a while to go through:
- a state enacts a statewide ban on smoking in all public establishments, to include restaurants and bars, hoping to decrease health-related problems. That's all well and good, except that in "solving" one problem, they've created another one - unemployment…
- due to the statewide ban, restaurants and bars which used to allow smoking, are now having problems making ends meet due to a decrease in sales of food and alcohol, thus making the owners have to cut hours/workers (partial unemployment). Side note #1: due to the decrease in food and alcohol sales, less sales taxes are collected to send to the state…
- due to the decrease of food and alcohol sales, owners are unable to continue offering these services (unless they spend money that they are no longer bringing in to update their establishment, revamp the menu, etc. to try and bring in other clientele to make up for the lack of previous clients). If after a revamp, the restaurant or bar still is not making as much income as pre-ban, the owners close the place (full unemployment), declare bankruptcy, and possible foreclosure. Side note #2: due to the place closing, the city/state no longer receive property taxes, liquor license fees, restaurant fees, etc...
My thoughts on this is that personal choice and responsibility need to come into play - if a restaurant or bar owner wants to make their place "non-smoking", that is their choice. If they want to make it "smoking", that is also their choice, and then their responsibility is to make it well known that their place is a "smoking" establishment, as well as ensuring proper health codes are followed (air filtration systems, smoke eaters, etc.). If a non-smoker sees that a restaurant or bar is "smoking", they then have to make a choice of entering (of which they then accept the responsibility of possible second-hand smoke) or not, and going to another place.
At this point in our conversation, my wife asked me about "shouldn't the government be responsible for ensuring the health of people?" If the government was responsible for the health, wouldn’t it have made alcohol, tobacco, high fructose corn syrup, caffeine (in high doses), etc. illegal like it has for other drugs?
A solution for the smoking bans is for states to create a "smoking license" for bars and restaurants whose owners chose to make their establishments "smoking". Currently, liquor licenses are "sold" for places to legally sell beer, wine, and hard liquor, and the fees paid go into the city/state coffers. Basically, the "smoking license" would allow owners to have a "smoking" establishment, and they would receive the license after health officials came in and inspected the air filtration/smoke eater systems. This way, owners still have the choice of offering "smoke" or "non-smoke", smokers would still have a choice of places to go to, and the city/state can still receive the taxes (sales, property, license fees, etc.) as well as being responsible to the people of the state since the "smoking license" fee would go into a state health program "funding pot". Part of the responsibilty of receiving the "smoking license" would be allowing random inspections by the health department, similar to fire department inspections when they come around to inspect detectors, suppression systems, extinguishers, etc. If a bar or restaurant fails a health inspection after so many times, the place gets closed until resolved, and after three "strikes", the license gets pulled and the place then becomes mandatory "non-smoking".
Kind of an easy solution, if I don't say... Don't know why someone hasn't brought it up in a state yet...
Take Care, Live Life, and Pray Hard,
- DR