Collegiate Times

The editorial board is comprised of three nonsmokers and one smoker. One of the non-smokers reminds the sole smoker to quit every time that person lights up. Nonetheless, we all agree the statewide ban on smoking sends the wrong message for all the wrong reasons.

Proponents of the smoking ban argued it’s a matter of employees’ health. One study published in the British Medical Journal six years ago found that workplaces where smoking is common – bars, restaurants, bowling alleys – have a  major occupational hazard of secondhand smoke that can, in fact, be detrimental to a person’s health. Still we feel this topic is not one that needs to be legislated but one that should remain the establishment’s choice.

A bar’s owner, for example, should consult patrons and employees alike in order to find the best solution for them. If everyone feels banning smoking will increase business and improve the atmosphere, then they can decide to follow through.

A common rebuttal to this argument is that it’s also the right of the non-smoker to avoid secondhand smoke. Here the issue of choice is important. Just like it should be the owner’s choice to allow or ban smoking, patrons should choose to frequent or abandon establishments. If a bar that allows smoking starts to see an exodus of former patrons, maybe the issue will be reexamined with that in mind.

Unfortunately this issue has become more complicated in recent months with the weak economy. Employees of places where smoking is common are less likely to quit over issues with secondhand smoke. Finding a new job is stressful enough and in this economy it can be near impossible. Staying at the job out of necessity and ignoring health concerns is an important scenario to consider but not one that removes personal freedom.

This ban also raises the question of our treatment of smokers. You may have seen the stickers on Virginia Tech buildings that tell smokers to keep back 25 feet. It has become a matter of us quite literally pushing smokers away. This stems from the distinction of public buildings versus private businesses. With the smoking ban we have now crossed that threshold. If this continues, where do you think legislation will end?

The label “smoker” carries a connotation that is increasingly negative. Smokers are becoming cultural outcasts.  The crowd of people standing outside a building smoking seems separated from everyone else and snide remarks are commonly overheard. When did “smoker” become synonymous with “heathen,” and why has our culture demonized people for making choices affecting their own health? 

Already in Virginia it is against the law to text while driving. Is it absurd to think smoking could be next? Fumbling for a cigarette and lighter, hanging one hand out the window, taking eyes off the road to extinguish the butt – does this sound like distracted driving? It’s a stretch, yes, but we ask this question to prove a point. It may not seem absurd now, but what about when anti-litter advocates see it as a way to cut down on roadside ashtrays?

The point is, incrementally the debate will start to sound more and more one-sided. Coalitions will come together and paint the smoker as the enemy. At its core, the smoking ban is not an issue of secondhand smoke but personal freedom without threats of legislation. It’s a frightening thing when you blindly choose to follow the path of least resistance. Belmont, Calif., has been trying to pass an ordinance that even bans smoking in private homes. Now that’s absurd – but maybe not after smoking is banned everywhere else.

Just like a smoker’s vice can start with one puff, personal freedom can be removed just as easily — so here’s to not getting addicted.