|
VIEWPOINT: Smoking issue becomes clear through others' eyes |
|
|
|
|
By Yvonne D. Hawkins
|
|
Tuesday, 13 March 2007 |
In February 2005, when the Sioux Falls Business Journal had an editorial board, this publication printed its position on extending the state’s smoking ban. The article read, in part:
“State House members were right to kill an extension of the smoking ban approved two years ago. ... The question is whether bars and lottery establishments are reasonable exceptions to legislation that’s primarily aimed at workplace safety – and they are.
“Most service and industry workers should expect employers to provide a smoke-free environment. The current legislation offers that protection.
“However, there are some businesses – bars and lottery establishments, primarily – that often cater to the smoking crowd. And it’s reasonable to ask employees of those businesses to take that into consideration before working there.”
I remember the day when the editorial board drafted that position. I still can feel the nervousness that spread over me knowing that the board’s conclusion would be unpopular with many folks.
The journal’s mission then – as it remains today – was to view issues through a business lens. So the paper asks questions such as: “What’s the impact of this issue on a business?”
But we also ask questions such as: “What’s the impact of business’ behavior on others, especially Sioux Falls as a whole?”
It’s an interesting challenge. On one hand, the journal is a business advocate. On the other, we’re a devil’s advocate.
In finding ways to balance both tasks, sometimes we fall off the beam. And in retrospect, our smoking-ban editorial might have been one of those moments.
Having said that, I also must point out that there’s a difference between an editorial and an editor’s column, such as this one.
The former is a publication’s official position that has been crafted through a collaboration of diverse voices. The latter is me ranting or raving about something, though hopefully based on research and facts.
At any rate, two years later, I found myself observing with intensity what this year’s Legislature would do with the state’s smoking ban. A proposed extension of the ban once again found itself on the legislative agenda, and lawmakers again kept the system status quo.
The issue remains now as it did then – mostly one of workers’ rights versus free enterprise.
What’s different now, in my perspective, is a singular experience.
During a recent benefit for the American Cancer Society, I saw a quote that shifted my paradigm. I participated in the event that night in honor of a friend who died last year of lymphoma. Yet, as the evening began, the words of another participant, whom I got to know somewhat throughout that day, appeared in segments on a video screen.
“I hate smoking,” my new friend’s quote began. “It killed my dad.”
It’s amazing how putting a face to an issue clears the haze.
The issue of the smoking ban generally centers on limiting potential harm from secondhand smoke. And no one should be exposed against his or her will to something that kills people’s dads.
If the journal still had an editorial board today, I don’t know what its official position on extending the ban would be. But I would fight for a change. Hopefully someday our legislators will, too. |