Take Your (cigarette) Butt Outside

With the exception of some bars I used to frequent when I was a drinker, I have not smoked a cigarette indoors since 1992. My wife has never smoked and, thank goodness, none of my children smoke. It soon came to be that my wife used my own words against me to put me outside where my smoke and I belonged.

At my work place where smoking was still allowed, there were many non-smokers. They had become accustomed to cigarette smoke in the work place and simply learned to live with it. More and more information, however, made it clear that second-hand smoke is essentially non-filtered smoke and is dangerous. Whether is it more dangerous that smoking first hand is irrelevant. Non-smokers have more of a right to breathe clean air than we smokers have a right to foul it up. It is more reasonable that a cigarette smoker step outside for ten minutes to smoke than it is to expect a non-smoker to step outside for ten minutes of fresh air.

I bring this up because more cities are lining up to declare all public places to be smoke-free, including private establishments such as restaurants and bars. Smokers are up in arms over the whole deal and trying to convince anyone who will listen that their "rights" are being violated. Even business owners are upset because they are being told by the government what they can and cannot do and allow in their "private" establishments.

Should the government be involved at all? Does the city, county, or state have any business telling a restaurant that smoking must not be allowed? In a word, yes.

The government is already involved with the various Health departments that come and inspect facilities, food, preparation areas, and sanitation facilities. There are rules by which a business must abide if it expects to stay in business. The law is absolute: if you endanger the well-being of the consuming public, you will be shut down until corrections are made.

I had an unfortunate bout with samonella not long ago. Once I had tests done at a local hospital (doctors were not sure what was wrong), the hospital notified the state Health department as required by law. The Health department then contacted me to determine whether I worked in food service or child care. Had I been engaged in either of these businesses, I would have been forced to quit until the Health department gave me the ok to return to work. Why? Because I was sick, and it was a risk to public health.

So why is cigarette smoking any different? Science tells us that the smoke is dangerous, so why do smokers believe that they have "rights" to include usurping another's rights? Because cigarettes are legal. And tobacco is subsidized by the US government. And believe me, the non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work. My wife can become deathly ill while smelling or breathing cigarette smoke while she is trying to eat. Being in a separate room does not remove the cigarette smoke from the building.

Restaurant owners are also in a tear about the potential loss of business. Do they really believe that smokers will stop eating out if they cannot have a cigarette with their meal? It is highly unlikely. I would venture to guess that it is more likely that non-smokers who stopped eating out will return. And if the city makes the regulation across the board with no exemptions, one restaurant cannot enjoy an advantage over the other.

The fact is we smokers have every right to smoke if we so choose, and we can smoke to our heart's content (and detriment, you know!). With rights, however, come enormous responsibilities to one another. We lose our rights when our rights begin to trample on the rights of others. I do have a right to smoke, but I do not have a right to force another to breathe it.