SECONDHAND SMOKE
Regulated, just like any toxic substance
Wade Yarbrough ("'Freedom to breathe,' at the cost of choice," Oct. 10) is concerned that the five-year-old Freedom to Breathe Act infringes on business owners' "property rights," which in his view apparently extend to the right to force employees to work in an environment contaminated with cancer-causing cigarette smoke.
I'm lucky. I work in an office building. I have my own office, with a door and everything. Under Yarbrough's view, I could walk in one morning with a carton of cigarettes and puff away my day. Except the law (the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act) says that I can't do that. Why? Because my coworkers shouldn't have to be subjected to toxic smoke in order to keep their jobs. I don't know about you, but I never hear people complain that they can't smoke inside at work. It's just not hard to see how it's unfair, impolite and dangerous to allow smoke-filled workplaces.
Freedom to Breathe does nothing more than to extend the same protections to servers, kitchen workers and bartenders. Bars and restaurants are their workplaces. They shouldn't have to be poisoned to go to work any more than my coworkers should.
I can't bring clients into my office and tell them to feel free to light up. Restaurant owners shouldn't be able to, either.
ADAM MILLER, MINNEAPOLIS
• • •
From time to time, in the name of public health, we need to pass laws to protect workers and consumers.
For example, manufacturers and builders loved and used asbestos for decades, and if not for laws regulating it, they might still be using the toxic substance, putting consumers and workers in danger. Lead-based paint is another example -- it endangered health, so businesses had to adapt and change. Every reputable study ever done has shown that secondhand smoke is dangerous to everyone's health. In fact, it's even been labeled a Class 1 carcinogen -- the same as asbestos and benzene.