Letters to the Editor

by the Readers

Smoke Screams

[Slant, "Get Lit," Peter Woodall, March 3, 2005] had a strong condescending view toward people who don't want a ban on smoking in Philadelphia bars. As a smoker and an avid bargoer, I am anxiously worried that my right to "puff away" will be sadly forbidden.

The author of the pro-banning article dares to ask the question "Yo, what about my lungs?" I ask, "Yo, what about your kidneys?" I don't understand how Woodall and others always argue that smoking in bars causes health problems. Well, what about the pint after pint after liter of harmful alcohol that these anti-smoking Philadelphians consume? With each shot of whiskey or vodka, these people are causing harsh liver, brain and kidney damage. In this sense, the ban is pure hypocrisy. It baffles the mind that people are so worried about their health when it comes to smoking but are so apathetic about their health when it comes to drinking. It is not hypocritical to ban smoking in a hospital, but it is hypocritical to ban smoking while getting drunk.
Joseph Radyshewsky
West Berlin, N.J.

Although not a smoker myself, I would like to respond to Woodall's willfully ignorant piece in which he saw fit to put the word "rights," when referring to the rights of people who smoke, in quotation marks. It astounds me that people like Woodall spew such anti-constitutional garbage in the pages of what purports to be an alternative newspaper for urbane hipsters. This is another sign that purportedly "liberal" America has linked arms with our right-wing lunatic fringe in denying citizens their natural rights as described (but not granted, an important distinction) by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

Smoking tobacco, a legal and already heavily taxed and regulated product, just happens to be a current bugaboo of a vocal minority on the left. On the right, we have movements to ban certain literature and "sodomy," which is every bit as offensive and unsupported by the Bill of Rights as the proposed smoking ban. I'll remind Woodall and others that bars and private clubs are not public spaces, but private ones entered voluntarily. This includes entering a bar for work. Consenting adults are most certainly allowed to engage in legal activity as an assembled mass within the confines of a private space.

I would suggest that Woodall and the appropriately named City Councilman [Michael] Nutter consult the Bill of Rights and note the natural rights acknowledged by the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments in this capacity. If Woodall or Nutter persist in throwing the word rights in quotes thereafter, I suggest for the sake of the rest of us that they look into moving to Saudi Arabia, North Korea or a similar locale in which no one thinks twice about mentioning so-called "rights" with a self-satisfied smirk.

Chris Randolph
Philadelphia

There is one hazy aspect to the proposed smoking ban in Philadelphia that nobody is addressing [Slant, "Smoke This," Brian Hickey, March 10, 2005]. Similar to seatbelt and helmet laws, the proposed smoking ban has little to do with the legislators' concern for public health, and a lot to do with the money paid by insurance companies to health-care providers for cleaning up the results of risky behaviors.

Policy makers [should] simply admit this reason, and not feign a genuine concern for our well-being. If they truly cared about the public's health, they would be banning smoking in public places and subsidizing everybody's health-care costs in one giant cascade of kindness. It is no surprise that the early adopters of smoking bans are cities with large insurance company hubs and countless public hospitals: Boston, New York, San Francisco, and, almost, Philadelphia. Though we are not made aware of the details, [I] suspect the industry leaders of these companies can get a phone call returned by a City Council member much quicker than the rest of us. That's how all this slimy insider business gets done, but don't sell it to the people like you care about their health when the list of other environmental hazards to our health have been piling up along the riverbanks and wafting from the mountains of blight and SEPTA buses for decades.
Blake Lehmann
Center City

Right friggin' on!! I grew up in a taproom in South Philly. My father grew up in a taproom, etc. On a Friday (or any) night, the taprooms in South Philly are full of smoke, conversation, cold brews and endless shots. I would hate to see the owners go under, but that is a logical conclusion.
Carl Vaughan
South Philadelphia

What amazes me is how hard we work as a city to remain lesser than the great cities of the world. While NYC and all of California, Ireland and Italy have gone smoke-free, we fight to put off an inevitability, claiming "freedom of choice," unaware of the ironic twist that an addictive substance puts on those words.

In the face of a federal probe investigating "pay to play," we dodge the chance to do the right thing and insist on maintaining a culture of getting less for our city's money from people or businesses not chosen for their ability but for their proximity to whatever administration is current.

As our bloated public transportation system cries out for additional finances, instead of looking at how other cities get so much more for so much less, we maintain the status quo with additional cash, letting the inherent problems propagate, insuring further decline and less for more.

Though it's the 21st century, we continue to battle with fatted unions who care not about the bigger picture of a healthy and growing Philadelphia but with the immediate lining of their pockets through tactics that are increasingly moblike and have not had a legitimate place in this country within the past 50 years.

Even our waterfront has been part of the game, with the simple glitz of glorified malls being foist upon us, instead of the mature, dry plan of sinking Delaware Ave. and I-95 properly and solidly extending the city to the water first.

How many more balls can we afford to drop through a short-sightedness that has those people of excellence who won't accept such mismanagement and waste heading out to cities with a vision? Who will be left? The lazy. The fat. The greedy. Those who like to see things run the way they've always been run. Don't we deserve better?
Jay Scheuerle
South Philadelphia

I wasn't bothered by the fact that [Brian Hickey] opposes the ban. I was put off by his manner of presenting his "argument" (if you could even call it an argument). If he wants to present his side of things, he could at least do so with some level of intelligence and competency. He resorted to a third-grade level of argument, which goes something like this: "You're a ginseng tea drinking, tofu shake sipping, yoga class taking, Tori Amos listening wimp." One of my closest friends is a smoker against the ban. She also does yoga. Oh shit, she's fucking up his stereotype. What are you going to do now, Mr. Hickey? If you want to present the other side of an argument, at least do so with some level of skill. Present some facts. Make some points. Back them up. Please don't waste my time with your temper tantrums. I hear enough of that at work teaching elementary school children. And stop bullying people (Nutter) — again acting like a petulant 9-year-old. If I wanted to experience your level of dispute, I would watch the "WWF Smackdown" wrestling show.
Carrie Biegler
Northern Liberties

As a restaurant professional, I feel compelled to share an industry perspective in response to your piece on City Council's upcoming smoking bill. While there is little doubt that banning smoking in restaurants will reduce sales, many restaurateurs are secretly hoping that the city will pass it anyway. Some cite the small things. Smoking drives away as many customers as it attracts. Smoke makes the food taste off. Burning butts take a serious toll on expensive carpeting, upholstery and tabletops. But, for those who have thought it through, it usually boils down to one insurmountable argument: smoking is dangerous for their staff and management. It's quite simple, really. Smoking in the workplace is either an Occupational Safety & Health Administration issue, or it is not.

Ample evidence has been brought forward that secondhand smoke is a significant health risk to those with regular exposure. This was the rationale behind the myriad laws prohibiting smoking in offices and other work spaces. However, bars and restaurants are workplaces, too. Why should hospitality employees be exempt from the protections mandated for others? Arguing that bars and restaurants should be exceptions to an accepted rule regarding health hazards in the workplace classifies their employees as second-class citizens. Unless people accept smoking back into offices, schools, hospitals and airports, it doesn't belong in restaurants either.
Marnie Old, Old Wines LLC
Center City