Tobacco bans cut health costs
More and more communities are promoting local health and wellness as a part of their economic development strategies. Healthy children learn better, and healthy workers are more productive. The City of Rock Hill is no exception.
Regarding the challenges being made to the proposed new 100-percent smoke-free rule in city parks: It may be true that “officially designated” smoking areas in city parks would potentially accomplish the goal of unwanted second-hand smoke exposure for adult non-smokers and children.
However, this new rule really comes down to the overall public health “community benefit” and “family-friendly-city” reputation importance of going totally smoke-free.
Studies show that with the implementation of smoke-free environments more smokers will decide to and successfully quit. Not to mention all of the tobacco-related health care cost savings that would help slow down health care cost inflation for all of us.
We are at the point with tobacco smoking in 21st century America that the public good of smoke-free environments is greater than ever, and we should recognize that for our local parks and playground areas – just as we do at our local public school and hospital campuses.
And, if there is any question whether there are smokers at our parks, just check the cigarette butts in trashcans and the littered parking lots, walkways and play areas!
Julia Yaraei, M.D.
David F. Keely, M.D.
Editor’s note: Yaraei and Keely are the chair and vice-chair, respectively, of the Tobacco Free York County Coalition.
Smoking ban erodes our freedoms
I very seldom agree with anything that Andrew Dys writes, but his article on the proposed smoking ban in city parks is right on. With wide-open park spaces and the wind always blowing, common sense dictates that second-hand smoke will be at a minimum.
I see no reason for designated smoking areas therein. I don’t smoke and I physically can’t use the parks, but it is a matter of principle to me.
It seems that political correctness is always taking the extra mile and sadly our freedom is slowly slip-sliding away.
Meredith E. Bynum
Clinton would raise taxes on rich
Hillary Clinton has promised, if she is elected president, she will raise taxes on the rich and use the new taxes to help pay tuition fees.
If taxes are raised on the rich, they will only move more businesses overseas! Then when you get your four-year degree, maybe you will be lucky to get a job flipping burgers at McDonalds.
If you really, really think Clinton is the best choice, maybe you need to vote for her so when you are shocked that she has lied for the umpteenth time you should grow up and seek the facts!
Democrats always complain about the rich. Who creates the jobs? If the one at the top makes no money, why would he think about expanding, thereby creating more jobs?
Instead of cutting taxes (the U.S. has the highest-paying corporate taxes in the world) the Democrats want to raise more taxes thereby killing the incentive to expand.