There aren’t many things I do that I’m not proud of. My extreme and marginalized opinions, eating at McDonald’s twice a week, watching obscene amounts of Project Runway and freestyling to myself on the 22 Illini; these are all things I’ll openly admit to. But smoking is something that’s slowly and surely becoming more taboo than I feel comfortable with. I’ve been smoking for many more years than I should have been, and most likely, I’m going to pay dearly for the irreverence of my youth.

When I stand outside these days, unable to smoke in the bars, it doesn’t feel rebellious or cool. It feels mildly stupid, and it seems like all who pass by know it. The smokers I used to know are buckling under the pressure. One by one, my friends are quitting smoking, forcing me more often than not to brave the elements on my own to feed my addiction. But even considering all of that, all the disease, loneliness, smelliness, stupidity of my habit, I absolutely love it. I love every second of it. And I’m sure this is how all the remaining smokers feel: good or bad, enjoyable victimless actions that don’t significantly disturb the peace should be allowed.

In a sense, I’m in support of all the smoking bans virally spreading across the country. It’s not really fair to impose my habit on others, even if it is just a matter of inconvenience for them. But it’s also a matter of health. So at the end of the day, I’m glad I can’t smoke in restaurants and bars most of the time. Nevertheless, as supportive as I am of the ends of this legislation, I disagree with blanket bans. There are more effective ways to curtail the effects of secondhand smoke that can preserve my want for one or two establishments where I can smoke.

The goal of most smoking bans that are enacted is to maintain healthy levels of indoor air quality. A good idea, but what most people don’t know is that indoor air quality is almost always worse than outdoor air quality. There are carcinogens, irritants and pollutants that thrive indoors that have nothing to do with smoking. It seems that legislation like smoking bans should address minimum levels of air quality of all sorts, not just due to smoking. After all, if the argument is that people shouldn’t be forced to work in unsafe environments, the government and citizens should pay attention to all significant health risks.

Indoor air quality is certainly affected adversely by smoking. There are more ways to solve this issue though, than simply to ban smoking in all indoor public establishments. It is possible, for example, to enact extremely strict ventilation laws which would function something like this: instead of instituting bans, local governments can mandate minimum indoor air quality levels (the EPA classifies this in terms of airborne particulates) which every establishment must conform to. It is possible, technically, to have minimum standards for air quality which could allow smoking in those establishments which are willing to pay large amounts of money for extremely well ventilated rooms.

At the end of the day, air quality standards are better for both workers and patrons. With divided smoking and non-smoking sections and the possibility of very high quality ventilation, many cities could have one or two establishments (with higher prices due to the price of ventilation) that allow smoking, catering to the shrinking minority of smokers. This policy would also improve air quality in general, as it would mandate that establishments with bad air quality for other reasons would still be accountable to their patrons and their health. I wish this was the case here in Champaign. Many bars don’t have gardens or patios and force you to wait in line if you exit to smoke, and while that’s fair, legislation which benefits everyone (even minorities) is always the best bet.