Smoking ban protects all

Dan Mollison

Recently there has been some discussion in the Champaign-Urbana area of instituting a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. While this would certainly pose a large inconvenience to smokers, I believe that instituting a ban is the correct choice.

In most circumstances, I am a firm believer of letting people do what they want to do. I don’t like it when the government steps in to tell me how I should live my life any more than anyone else. I think that if you choose to smoke, that’s fine, as long as you’re the only one affected by it.

The problem is that research reported by the National Institute of Health shows that second-hand smoke can cause cancer in non-smokers. This means that in bars and restaurants, your smoking is not just your problem anymore; now I’m affected by it, even if I choose not to smoke.

Ultimately, this issue brings up a debate we’ve had in America ever since its founding: when should individual liberties be respected, and when should the government limit some freedoms to protect the whole? Although a ban would impede on the rights of smokers, it’s appropriate in this case because smoking in bars and restaurants affects not just smokers, but everyone around them.

The prospect of a ban is difficult for smokers to face because smoking in bars and restaurants can be a way of life for them. But it’s important to remember that there’s no inherent connection between being at a bar and smoking. Everyone has an equal right to a safe bar and restaurant atmosphere regardless of their smoking preference, and non-smokers shouldn’t have to leave to protect their health. If safety weren’t an issue here, I’d be siding with the smokers; but in this case, the needs of the majority win.

The smoky gray area

Chuck Prochaska

As a conservative waging war against the wild-eyed left wing, you don’t often hear me referring to “the gray area.” But when it comes to the issue of public smoking in Champaign, or any other city for that matter, a complete ban on smoking, or lack thereof, is not the answer.

As a non-smoker, smoking in restaurants generally repulses me. The unclaimed aphorism “having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool,” makes total sense. But some people like me who also don’t enjoy a side of tar with their cheeseburger in paradise feel that an omnipotent ban should be enacted. This is an inappropriate response to curb the toxic decision to smoke.

Instead of a ban on public smoking, business owners should be offered tax incentives for making their establishment a smoke-free environment. I propose this because so many in the restaurant and bar industries claim that a ban would result in a decrease in patronage by smokers. Potential customers desiring that post-meal intoxication would have taken their carcinogens over to Urbana’s establishments still offering the choice of “smoking or non.” However, if a tax incentive was offered, the potential loss of revenue would be made up, and non-smoking patronage might even increase.

An all-out ban on public smoking, as hippie-ish as it sounds, could also be viewed as a violation of rights. True, you don’t have a right to blow your second hand smoke into my lungs, but if an independent entrepreneur wishes to cater to a smoking crowd, he should be able to, by allowing them to smoke.

Providing tax incentives as an alternative to a ban, on the other hand would give business owners the freedom to choose between health and convenience for their patrons with fewer repercussions, and it would give patrons the choice of eating and drinking in an increasing number of smoke-free establishments.