RE: Radon Field Day

[Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]

So if we raise the price of cocaine, fewer people will use it? And if we raise the tax on gambling, fewer people would do it? I think there's something about "addiction" that we're overlooking here.

Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer

-----Original Message-----
From: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM [mailto:AndrewsJP@AOL.COM]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:42 AM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Radon Field Day

In a message dated 5/18/02 9:05:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, epirad@mchsi.com writes:

The two most effective ways to reduce the rate of
smoking is via increased tax on cigarettes and by local
ordinances prohibiting smoking in public places.  If you
do not currently have a smokefree ordinance in your
community I would encourage each radsafer to start such
an effort similar to the one in Iowa City:

http://www.cleanairforeveryone.org/

This seems to be a very good idea.  I wonder what the unintended consequences will be for Iowa City.  Perhaps there will be more bars or restaurants with bars and alcoholism will increase because restaurants with more than 50% of their income are exempt.  There may even be more drunk drivers and more early deaths because of automobile accidents because of the proliferation of bars where smoking is allowed.  Perhaps if a few people are fined $25 for smoking during lunch, they will throw out the incumbent regulators and get some new ones that smoke.  That would be a real unintended consequence.  More likely, restraunteers will not consider opening a nice restaurant because smoking will be prohibited in all areas.  This would lead to fewer jobs and poorer lifestyle for all. There is no free lunch.  Don't get me wrong, I believe that other diners should not smoke near me while I eat.  Note the wording is "should not" not "shall not"! and that is the crux of the arguement.

John Andrews
Knoxville, Tennessee