Friday, Dec. 29, 2006 | 7:23 a.m.
I am a nonsmoker, a health care professional (nurse practitioner) and an avid proponent of smoking avoidance/smoking cessation. I also voted "no" for both ill-conceived nonsmoking ballot questions.
I knew that Question 4 was completely meaningless and that Question 5 would penalize small-business owners and discriminate against 25 percent of the population (the smokers) while failing to protect vulnerable individuals, especially children, from secondhand smoke.
Children's most significant exposure to secondhand smoke is not from ducking into a convenience store for a snack, or even walking through the (exempted) casinos to the movie theater, but living with parents who smoke in their homes - which is completely legal.
As far as smoking in bars - they're bars for Pete's sake! Children are not even allowed inside them.
Has anyone thought of the impact of not serving food to people drinking alcohol in bars, thus raising their blood alcohol levels a bit more? Nonsmokers are free to avoid smoky bars, and bar owners are free to choose whether they want to attract the nonsmokers (75 percent) or the smokers.
Those who are interested in protecting children should draft a bill making it illegal to smoke in a home where children reside. I would gladly vote "yes."
Gail Rattigan, Henderson
archive
