CORRESPONDENT OF THE DAY

Workers' Health Trumps Proprietors' Rights

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Surprisingly, the debate about smoking has centered on government interference with private businesses rather than the toxic and carcinogenic nature of secondhand tobacco smoke and the inability of many to escape it.

On most issues, I find myself in agreement with Bart Hinkle, but I disagree with his recent Op/Ed column, "On Smoking, Puritanism Triumphs Over Tolerance," and his assertion that "the sole parties who have a right at issue . . . are the proprietors."

Since the regulations passed by the General Assembly recently stop short of protecting employees, perhaps there are existing laws that could be enforced. The first sentence of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 states that its purpose is to "assure safe and healthful working conditions for men and women." And OSHA has certainly delineated guidelines for airborne toxins and carcinogens in the workplace. Perhaps OSHA could do air quality sampling in restaurants where smoking is permitted.

Furthermore, Virginia Department of Health (VDH) regulations regarding restaurants (section 12 VAC 5-421 3350) states: "Only those poisonous or toxic materials that are required for the operation and maintenance of a food establishment . . . shall be allowed in a food establishment." Is secondhand smoke required for the operation of a restaurant? Could VDH take action? Pets are also prohibited in restaurants. Is this deemed unnecessary government interference in private business?

My examples may be a stretch in the interpretation of the laws, but I present them in order to show that our legislators have a responsibility to protect the health and safety of restaurant employees in addition to guests. If there is a hierarchy of rights, employee health trumps privilege and convenience.

Jeff Odell. Richmond.