2008 Woodie Awards
Students react to ban on smoking
Ry Marcattilio-McCracken
Issue date: 10/8/07 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
A week has passed since the enactment of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Freedom to Breathe Provisions, which, according to the Minnesota Department of Health's Web site stipulates "smoking will be prohibited in virtually all indoor public places and indoor places of employment."
They define an indoor place as "all space between a floor and a ceiling that is bounded by walls, doorways, or windows, whether open or closed, covering more than 50 percent of the combined surface area of the vertical planes (wall space) constituting the perimeter of the area, whether temporary or permanent. A (standard) window screen is not considered a wall."
All that confusing talk really means smokers will no longer be able to enjoy their habit in any of the usual indoor places: bars, restaurants, workplaces, etc.
One thing the law does not restrict, however, is outside smoking.
There is no specific distance from building openings smokers must remain as they smoke, and there are special circumstances (like scripted smoking in theater) in which indoor smoking is permitted.
For more details go to www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/mciaa/ftb.
Some see the act as a pivotal triumph for the safety of public health and others see it as a monumental restriction of individual freedom.
It's time to take a head count.
It's time to see what kind (if any) of an uproar can be heard echoing down the streets of public opinion.
Of the people interviewed for this piece, a significant majority answered in the affirmative.
Seventy-five percent of the pool, all of them nonsmokers, thought the smoking ban to be a good thing.
Nick Seiben, a student at SCSU, fell among them.
"I'm pumped about it," Seiben said. "There are cooler ways to die."
Marissa Winkleman, a longtime employee of
Granite Bowl, agrees. "I think it's great," says Winkleman. "Now people who don't smoke don't have to suffer, and my lungs don't hurt after work the next morning. I didn't realize how bad it was until it wasn't there any more." Not all people, however, are sympathetic. Twenty-one percent of those asked were nonsmokers who, nonetheless, didn't support the ban, most of them objecting on the basis that any law that takes away right is bad news. The remaining four percent of respondents were smokers who object to the ban, on the obvious ground that it now forces them outside to smoke. The discontent, however, seems to remain fairly contained. "I haven't really heard any of the regular smokers at work complain about it," says Winkleman when asked.
One smoker who was willing to share their view was Diamond Frank, a local student. "I think it's stupid because it takes away a right of anyone to smoke when they want," says Frank. Despite these strong views, it seems that the majority has spoken in favor of cleaner air in public spaces. One question that will be answered in the near future, one of those icing-on-the-cake things that many who support the ban no doubt favor, is whether the smoking ban will provide an opportunity for many to quit smoking all together. We will have to watch and see.
They define an indoor place as "all space between a floor and a ceiling that is bounded by walls, doorways, or windows, whether open or closed, covering more than 50 percent of the combined surface area of the vertical planes (wall space) constituting the perimeter of the area, whether temporary or permanent. A (standard) window screen is not considered a wall."
All that confusing talk really means smokers will no longer be able to enjoy their habit in any of the usual indoor places: bars, restaurants, workplaces, etc.
One thing the law does not restrict, however, is outside smoking.
There is no specific distance from building openings smokers must remain as they smoke, and there are special circumstances (like scripted smoking in theater) in which indoor smoking is permitted.
For more details go to www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/mciaa/ftb.
Some see the act as a pivotal triumph for the safety of public health and others see it as a monumental restriction of individual freedom.
It's time to take a head count.
It's time to see what kind (if any) of an uproar can be heard echoing down the streets of public opinion.
Of the people interviewed for this piece, a significant majority answered in the affirmative.
Seventy-five percent of the pool, all of them nonsmokers, thought the smoking ban to be a good thing.
Nick Seiben, a student at SCSU, fell among them.
"I'm pumped about it," Seiben said. "There are cooler ways to die."
Marissa Winkleman, a longtime employee of
Granite Bowl, agrees. "I think it's great," says Winkleman. "Now people who don't smoke don't have to suffer, and my lungs don't hurt after work the next morning. I didn't realize how bad it was until it wasn't there any more." Not all people, however, are sympathetic. Twenty-one percent of those asked were nonsmokers who, nonetheless, didn't support the ban, most of them objecting on the basis that any law that takes away right is bad news. The remaining four percent of respondents were smokers who object to the ban, on the obvious ground that it now forces them outside to smoke. The discontent, however, seems to remain fairly contained. "I haven't really heard any of the regular smokers at work complain about it," says Winkleman when asked.
One smoker who was willing to share their view was Diamond Frank, a local student. "I think it's stupid because it takes away a right of anyone to smoke when they want," says Frank. Despite these strong views, it seems that the majority has spoken in favor of cleaner air in public spaces. One question that will be answered in the near future, one of those icing-on-the-cake things that many who support the ban no doubt favor, is whether the smoking ban will provide an opportunity for many to quit smoking all together. We will have to watch and see.