A Letter Against the Smoking Ban,
I am a resident of Oak Park and would like to voice my opposition to
the proposed smoking ban. I am not a smoker and do I stand to gain or
loose financially from either imposing a ban. However, I find the idea
of a ban to be narrow-minded and potentially hurtful to our village.
The Board of Health has a vested interest in reducing health risks to
the community. This is their mission. However, pressuring the village
to pass a smoking ban is a heavy-handed way to do their job. I
frequent several Oak Park restaurants as well as public facilities.
Nowhere have I seen literature or educational material from the Board
of Health. The Board of Health has put together a list of smoke free
restaurants, which is a terrific idea. The problem is, I have never
seen it in Oak Park. My husband and I had to specifically write in to
receive a copy through the mail. This is not an acceptable education
campaign from the Board of Health and we should expect better of them.
It seems to me that pushing for a ban is just a lazy way of doing
their job. Inform the public of the risks. Do not treat us like we
are naughty children who cannot reason or control ourselves.
Recently, Dr. David Ansell was quoted as saying "Oak Park has
usually led the charge on things like this," "Now we're not leading
the charge, we're behind the pack." Public policy is not about wining a
race to implement a statute. There is no prize for being the "most
progressive village". There is no shame in thinking about the effects
of policy before rushing into it. What would be a great shame is if
the Board of Trustees rushed into a decision based on pressure to
appear the most progressive.
Thank you,
Laura Schornack
February 3, 2005
Hello,
When my wife and I decided to move to Oak Park, one of the big
draws was the diversity of the village. We liked the idea of living
somewhere where people felt comfortable with each other and were
respectful to one another. I was very dismayed last month when I
happened to see that the Board of Trustees was voting on holding a
hearing on a smoking ban. Even though neither my wife nor I smoke,
we both found the idea of a smoking ban to be regressive and badly suited to Oak Park.
The idea that a smoke free Oak Park would have a competitive advantage over a non-smoking ban community is erroneous. Over
70% of Oak Park's restaurants are already smoke free and two thirds of the smoking restaurants are within one block of non-smoking places.
Customers who want to dine in a smoke free environment already have ample choice. What we can expect is a decline in current non-smoking restaurant's business as their clientele visits newly smoke free establishments.
Likewise, current places with smoking sections will loose business to
places 5 minutes away who allow them to dine as they like. For there
to be an increase in business, there would have to be a net increase
in total dining out and there is no reason to expect that this will
spontaneously happen. Every restaurant in Oak Park stands to loose.
This is saying nothing of nearby shops that receive run-off business.
Protection of the labor force is probably the most compelling argument
for a smoking ban. After all, workers are expected to perform shifts
in a smoky environment if they work in a restaurant with a smoking
section. However, the parties pushing for a smoking ban in Oak Park
are not representative of the people they are supposedly trying to
protect. They do not appear to have even asked the workers if they
want a ban. Indeed, there are a large number of workers who have
spoken out against the smoking ban. To assume that these people are
ignorant or helpless is condescending. Workers know the risks of
smoking just as well as any other member of our community. They,
like practitioners of other professions know the risks and deal with them. To disrupt their livelihood in order to protect people who never asked for protection is just bad judgment.
With benefits of a ban that appear insignificant or non-existent, and
the costs of lost business as a practically forgone conclusion, I ask:
Is this ban worth it?
Thank you,
Mark Zinthefer