Column: Smoking ban isn't right

By Jordan Stein

Published Feb. 16, 2010

Due to the influx of comments on Friday's column and my personal interest in the issue, I'd like to respond to Clay Carter's column about smoking bans.

I used to be on the fence when it came to smoking bans. Being an occasional smoker, I thought my habits were being demoralized, even though smoking is legal. But, I also was not stupid enough to ignore the mounting evidence that second-hand smoke is bad news for non-smokers.

My opinion changed when a local bar owner I know was discussing the smoking ban with me. He runs a bar that serves a variety of patrons, both students and townies, young and old. He allowed smoking in his bar until a city ordinance banned smoking in all establishments within the Columbia city limits. Since then, this bar owner has followed the rules and kept smokers outside. I've seen many people who have had a few, and mistakenly lit up inside, only to be booted out.

However, a nearby bar does allow smoking. Not officially, of course, but on a late night with a loud show, people often light up cigarettes with no repercussions. This bar is a competing bar with the one I frequent. My friend is certain many of his patrons abandon his bar on the weekends to go to the competing bar, where they are allowed to smoke inside.

This is all anecdotal evidence, so I cannot back up his assertions with facts. But if this is true, my friend is taking a financial hit for following the rules. This is a classic example of my argument against smoking bans.

My friend would allow smoking in his establishment in a heartbeat because it's a bar, and that's what happens in a bar. His rights as a business owner should include power to decide what he allows and does not allow in his bar, as long as those activities are legal.

Smoking bans are completely unnecessary because lots of restaurants or other public establishments are allowed to ban smoking if they please. This just reinforces the individual business owner's rights.

And for consumers, the choice is available as well. You can go to a restaurant with smoking or not, depending on your preference. The issue seems so divided, that there is likely to be an even split between places that allow smoking and those that don't.

My final comment is in reference to Carter's assertion that a public health care option will legitimize bans and regulations like the smoking ban. I think it's ridiculous to assume that a government option is equivalent to "state-run health care." A government option actually assures that everyone, regardless of his or her unhealthy habits, will have access to health care.

These two concepts are related. Smoking bans and restricting access to health insurance to only healthy people are both the result of demonizing legal behavior. In the interest of preserving personal freedoms, we should lift the ban on smoking and open health care access.

Jordan Stein is a senior political science major and a campaign volunteer for Columbia mayoral candidate Sid Sullivan. She can be reached at jesf25@mail.mizzou.edu