Monday, Dec. 11, 2006 | 7:31 a.m.
If I were concerned over my health in regards to working in an environment where smoking is permitted, I would choose to apply only to places where the environment did not allow smoking. If I didn't care one way or the other, or if I were not concerned about secondhand smoke, then I would be willing to apply for a job where smoking was permitted. Isn't that a matter of personal choice?
If I want to go out to eat, I have a choice to patronize restaurants that allow smoking or I can choose to only patronize restaurants that do not permit smoking anywhere on the premises. It is a matter of personal choice. Where I spend my money is my business and nobody else's.
The owner of the business has a choice, too. He or she can choose to allow smoking or choose to ban it. No person is forced to patronize his or her business, and no person is forced to work there, either. The environment is a matter of choice by the owner, and working or eating in that environment is a matter of choice by the prospective employee or prospective customer.
A statute that places a restriction on small businesses (under 16 slot machines) and exempts the big boys (e.g., casinos) is an unequal application of the law. The initiative was designed and worded in such a way as to exempt the businesses with the big money, but affect only the small businesses that simply couldn't afford to fight it. It should be tossed out as an unequal application of law and therefore unconstitutional.
While we're at it, let's toss out the anti-smoking ayatollahs, too.
David Adams, Las Vegas
archive
