Collegiate Times

Recently something happened that few people could have ever dreamed: the Senate of Virginia passed a bill that would ban smoking in restaurants and bars, amongst other places. As of this writing, the bill (SB 648) has been communicated to the House of Delegates for consideration.

Some people argue that this is a health issue. A recent Collegiate Times editorial (?Va. smoking ban would clear air for all,? CT, Feb. 15) articulated as much: ?Choosing to smoke is a personal decision made entirely on an individual basis?.However, nonsmokers are the ones who suffer by being denied that choice every time they are forced to inhale secondhand smoke in a public establishment.?

Last I checked no one is ever forced to enter an establishment where smoking is currently allowed. Case in point: As I type this I?m sitting in the Rivermill, a restaurant that allows smoking, and I can see plenty of people around me doing so (not including myself). I am very well aware of the health risks associated with secondhand smoke, yet I made the choice to sit where I am. Could I have gone next door to Bollo?s or Gillie?s where smoking is not allowed? Yes. But I chose not to because I value the other aspects of the Rivermill over the alternatives.

Just as I choose to sit in a smoking environment, all other people can choose to not sit in a smoking environment. So to say that nonsmokers are ?forced? to breathe secondhand smoke is like saying I?m ?forced? to watch a TV show I don?t like.

Even if an establishment is open to the general public, it is still owned and operated by a private individual or company. Many Blacksburg restaurants are owned by individuals who invest large chunks of their time and money to make a living through their businesses. So who should make the decisions of how a business is run? The proprietors or the state?

Advocates of smoking bans will say that the ?greater good? supersedes any private ownership rights. If we take that rationale one step farther, then there should be a law against establishments playing music over 85 decibels, the threshold at which hearing loss begins. After all, we have a right to be in an environment that is completely benign to our health, don?t we?

Another argument is that the government already regulates the food and water in restaurants, so why not the air? Government regulation and health standards for food and water are designed to protect consumers from unknown contaminants. However, tobacco smoke is a known contaminant, and people freely make the informed decision to smoke or not to smoke. Along the same lines, some business owners choose to allow it and some do not.

What will this ban do to businesses in Blacksburg? Some establishments would be unaffected by the smoking ban, while others would face a potential loss. Customers where smoking is currently allowed would have to go outside to smoke, giving them less time to actually spend money, which means less income for the business and its employees. The worst case would be a place like Shesha, which absolutely depends on indoor smoking to function. The proposed ban makes no such exception for them.

Those who smoke are told not to worry since they?ll still be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes. That may be true for now, but given the current trend, can anyone doubt that the ultimate goal is the complete prohibition of smoking?

Don?t get me wrong, I?m not advocating smoking any more than I would advocate any other dangerous activity. However, what adults do to their own bodies is nobody?s business so long as it does not harm anyone else. That?s why it is reasonable to not allow smoking in places where everyone has to go, such as courthouses and other government buildings. But again, nobody is required to go into a privately owned establishment.

If it seems far-fetched that complete prohibition is the ultimate goal, then let us look back at history. Alcohol prohibition was passed one state at a time years before the Volstead Act made it nationwide. Marijuana and other currently illicit drugs were vilified (using propaganda more than actual scientific evidence) over a long period of time before being made completely illegal. And like we?re hearing now from the smoking prohibitionists, it was for the ?greater good? of society.

No one?s health is being affected against his or her will. Passing a blanket ban such as this will serve only as yet another infringement of property rights by the state. As such, it should be soundly rejected by the House of Delegates.