So Long, Smokers

Tomorrow, a ban on smoking in public buildings will go into effect here in Champaign. Although I support the efforts of the C-U Smokefree Alliance, we all have to remember that the implementation of this ban isn't a cause for celebration. Any time we decide to give up some of our rights, we have to ask ourselves why and truly come to an understanding of the situation.

With the smoking ban in place, people now have no options if they ever want to go to a bar or restaurant with their friends and smoke a cigarette. Having to go outside whenever they want to smoke is not the same thing. What if it rains, or if the temperature is -6 degrees Fahrenheit outside, like it is now? A loss of freedom can also be felt from the business owners' perspectives. If they want to allow smoking on their property, or if they just want to set a certain mood to their establishment, why should they be prevented from doing so?

Arguments can be made for a loss of freedom by nonsmokers. "Your right to smoke ends at my right to breathe clean air," some may say. It is true that secondhand smoke has been shown to cause cancer and other health problems, and that many people find the smell of cigarettes unattractive or even nauseating. It is also true that smoke permeates buildings and is capable of lowering the property values of business owners. However, all of these arguments are not reasons to ban smoking; they are arguments for keeping apart those that smoke and those that don't want to smell smoke.

People are capable of a variety of comfort levels when it comes to secondhand smoke. Some may go to the bars, tolerate the smell, and accept it as a part of the bar scene. Others may enjoy the smell and feel that smoking sets the ambiance for bars. Whatever a person's opinions may be, there are ways that everybody can coexist in our society without a unilateral ban on cigarettes. When a person doesn't like smoke, they just need to stay away from smokers; if a person likes to smoke, they need to be careful not to be obtrusive with their smoke. If a person doesn't like smoky bars, they could just stay away from those bars. If they really want to drink at bars but don't like the smoke, they could ask bar owners to ban smoking or attend smoke-free events at the bars. If enough people follow through with these actions, the market pressure would force businesses to make a decision. Business owners would then be given the opportunity to weigh the lost revenue and property values of not banning smoking against the lost business and ambiance of banning smoking.

Ideally, everybody could be informed about the effects of smoking, and everyone could be able to make informed decisions based on analyses of every aspect of the issue. The problem is that much of the time people get used to the status quo and don't fully entertain alternatives. The reason why bars probably haven't switched to nonsmoking by themselves already is that it's hard to imagine what bars would be like without smoking. The reason why people probably haven't petitioned bars more fervently to end smoking is that they find it hard to believe bars would voluntarily ban smoking.

In my opinion, smoking bans are the last resort for times when people refuse to heed or even believe the health risks of tobacco and secondhand smoke. I believe that a better alternative to the smoking ban would have been a temporary ban on smoking, so that patrons and business owners could see the effects of nonsmoking and then make an educated decision on whether or not to continue the practice. Remember: the government can only have the powers that we allow it to have, and by letting it ban smoking for us, we are letting them impose their views on all of us while we continue to lose some of our own rights.