Well, I see Nederland is toying with the idea of jumping on the non-smoking bandwagon with Beaumont. Maybe if the smokers are lucky, the city will stumble and miss the wagon.
I have no feelings one way or another about smoking. I once smoked, but I quit cigarettes forty years ago.
What bothers me about this whole non-smoking business is that one group of individuals figure they have the right to set standards for the rest of the world.
And yes, I understand the non-smokers’ point of view. I don’t blame them; but my concern is that once such a step is taken, a second and third step becomes much easier. If you ban smoking, what’s next?
While the good folks in Nederland are discussing the pros and cons of the ban, I’d like for them to consider another airborne irritant that creates respiratory problems for those citizens who are ultra-sensitive.
I’m talking about women’s perfume.
Don’t laugh. It’s a serious problem.
Why, there are innumerable women and men who, in reckless abandon, douse perfume and after shave lotion on their persons in copious amounts. Makes you wonder if they’re not just covering up the fact they haven’t showered in a week.
Believe it or not, there are places I won’t go because I can’t stand the overpowering odor of the perfume filling the room. My friend, Gaylord Putz, is even in worse shape than I. He says he’s asthmatic, and the slightest scent of perfume will send into a seizure in which his throat begins to tickle and his breathing passages constrict.
Trust me when I say, Gaylord is not the only asthmatic out there bothered by perfume. In doing research, I discovered that there are many with fragrance allergies, allergies detrimental to a person’s health. The doctors, in a brilliant display of prevention, say the best solution is to avoid exposure to the product.
So here’s my question. Why can’t the same be said considering the non-smoking ordinance? If you are allergic to smoke, avoid the area.
Answer me that.
I could name half-a-dozen businesses at the mall I never enter because the places reek with the stench of perfume. Somewhere along the line, those wearing it have overlooked the idea that less is better. They rely on overkill. Hey, if one drop behind the ears works wonders, what would a handful do?
If we can say a person commits an offense by smoking in an enclosed area, then why can’t we say the same about women and men who wear too much perfume or after shave lotion? Sitting in a restaurant overpowered with the stench of perfume, I’ve watched my margarita curdle in protest.
Now, I can hear some of you snorting, but never before has the old saying, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, been more true.
Certainly, such an ordinance would create problems. Look at the smoking ordinance.
Still, women could adjust. As long as they were outdoors, they could wear their favorite essence. But, if they were going to be in an enclosed room; within twenty-five feet of a pedestrian entrance to a building; or in the seating area of an amphitheater, then they could not wear any perfume.
Still, I’d want to be fair about the no-perfume ordinance. Unlike cigarette smoke, there is a difference in the intensity of various perfumes.
It might be wise to consider a graduated scale of perfume.
If you’re wearing an expensive perfume, say a hundred bucks an ounce, then you could enter most restaurants as long as you took a table close to the door.
Those opting for thirty-fifty buck an ounce perfume should be prohibited from driving an automobile with any passengers, only themselves.
And those who prefer the K-Mart perfume should be ordered to remain outdoors. If they do go to a restaurant, they should be seated in the rear near the exhaust fan.
Then I’d be happy.