Ban the Butts

The issue of smoking bans has always been a hot topic of disagreement between those who do smoke and those who do not. The smoker may feel that their right to choose is being taken away or restricted, but I feel that this point is invalidated by the extension of common logic. If they have the right to smoke (which they do), that means I have the right not to smoke(which I do). Which leads to the place where these ideals collide.

My choosing to not smoke does not impact the health or enjoyment of others in any way, shape or form. However, if a smoker lights up next to me at dinner, not only am I smelling the smoke, tasting the smoke and eventually wearing the scent, but I am also inhaling the toxins that are present in that smoke. The impact that smoking has on a person's health has been well documented, as has the impact of second-hand smoke.

Would I ever be opposed to a ban that eliminates smoking from restaraunts (unless the restaraunt can actually seperate the section with more than a chest high wall and effectively contain the smoke - bars and clubs excluded)? Never!

Would I be in favor of a city-wide ban in such cases? Sure!
Would I be in favor of a county-wide ban? You bet!
Would I be in favor of a state-wide ban? Absolutely!

My favorite quote of the whole argument in the article is from a lady named Karen Kelly from St. Charles:

"I'm not sure that secondhand smoke has any more to do with health problems than air pollution you breathe daily."

Hey Karen! Wake up and smell the smoke! It's been well documented.

I choose not to smoke, so why not allow me to remain as smoke-free as possible?