Yes, they said it. On the "conversations" page, which used to be Editorials. I guess the purple is not so bright a hue under the other label?
They headlined it "Snuff out smoking in public," even though they are not -- at this time -- calling for the snuffing of smokers themselves. (At least not 'til the scrubbers are fitted on the crematoria smokestacks). Under it, breathless bullet-points float unsupported by hard data: "Smoking bans do not hurt the bar and restaurant business," and, "Secondhand smoke is not merely an annoyance, but a killer on a mass scale."
Yowza. Y'know, I find the aroma of cigarette smoke distasteful. Oh, a faint whiff of the fresh stuff isn't so bad; I grew up with smokers and smoked myself for a long time. But more than that, especially if it even a little stale? Yuck! But calling for a total ban in workplaces and "enclosed public spaces," as the Star does, is nothing but nannying, for-your-own-good interference with individual rights, exactly the same as Temperance or drug prohibition, without even the thin excuse that users are an immediate, unavoidable danger to others.
Dear Indy Star: The Government is not your Mommy -- or anyone else's, either. If you don't like the smoke, avoid it.
W9BSP: A HAM'S HAM, A TEACHER'S TEACHER
3 weeks ago