By delaying its final decision on the proposed smoking ban until May, the Princeton Regional Health Commission gave us all some extra time to ponder the health hazards associated with secondhand smoke, the economic benefits associated with entrepreneurial free choice and finally, the appropriate bounds of local government.
Perhaps more importantly, the delay will give the commission time to figure out the smoking ban's legal consequences — namely, the likelihood of the Borough and Township being sued successfully by local bars, restaurants and taverns, the establishments most directly impacted by the proposed ban.
But even once the issue of liability is resolved, other questions will remain. If the commission thinks this decision will be easier in May, it may be sorely disappointed.
We do not dispute that those who proposed the ban on Feb. 17 had good intentions. Princeton establishments' employees and patrons may be involuntarily exposed to secondhand smoke, which scientists believe increases the chances of heart disease and cancer. Employees who get sick may miss days of work or patrons who are ill may seek medical treatment — either way, the cost of this problem falls back to the public in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher taxes or both. Because these medical and social problems can be avoided, we should have a smoking ban in all of Princeton's public places, supporters of the ban argue.
But the outpouring of critical response — from residents, business owners and students — is an equally valid argument. Like it or not, smoking is legal in the state of New Jersey, and local businesses could lose their smoking clientele to more smoker-friendly establishments in neighboring towns. People may not go to a restaurant or bar expressly for its smoking privileges, but take away those privileges, and they will go down the road a bit to get that privilege back. Because singling out local establishments hurts the Princeton community, the smoking ban would cause serious economic damage, critics argue.
Because eating clubs have specific memberships and often in-house officers, they present a gray area somewhere between private residences and work places. As a result, their status under the proposed ordinance should receive careful consideration. Regardless of how the Princeton Regional Health Commission ultimately votes, we hope it will take extra time to consider carefully the impact of this ban not only on the community at-large, but on the University community as well.
Read More
Princeton needs to be a climate justice leader — emphasis on the “climate,” emphasis on the “justice”
Alex Norbrook and Eleanor Clemans-Cope“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
