Nebraska's smoking ban

I've decided to focus on Nebraska's state-wide smoking ban for my next editorial. It's something that has come up quite often in my group of friends, since everyone smokes except me, my sister and my boyfriend. It's the equivalent of about three versus twenty, and I'm not exaggerating.

Neither my boyfriend nor my sister care about the ban, which ultimately leaves me as the only person to advocate for it. Because of this, I have my argument pretty well thought out (and well practiced!).

So I'll start by giving the basic argument points of those against the ban, then countering each of them with my own. Here we go!

1. It's not fair, the government is discriminating against smokers.
This is interesting, and honestly, the only point I can slightly agree with. The thing is, the government is NOT discriminating against them as people - they can still go and do anything a non-smoker can - it's simply that the government is discriminating about where they can smoke. Now, I doubt anyone actually identifies themselves as a "smoker" and not a "person." Just as identification is not black and white, neither is this issue.

2. They are infringing on my constitutional rights. I should be able to smoke wherever I want to.
Oh, so do you smoke in hospitals? Schools? Libraries? Grocery stores? Retail stores? Court houses? Government buildings? Banks? At the gas pump? Of course, when people say this, I realize they basically mean restaurants and bars, but they just don't understand how ridiculous it is that they should say "wherever I want" as if they've ever been able to smoke anywhere and everywhere.

Also, where in the constitution is a person guaranteed the right to smoke in a restaurant or bar? Oh right, NOWHERE. But just for argument's sake, what about my constitutional right to breathe clean air? Every time a person smokes around me and I am forced to breathe their smoke, they just took away my right and my choice to be smoke-free. If I'm just standing around breathing, I'm not affecting them in any way. Isn't there something wrong about that?

Altogether, this constitutional rights argument is overly dramatic at best and downright ignorant at worst. The state isn't taking away your cigarettes. They aren't even telling you to quit smoking. They're simply saying, "Step outside to enjoy your cigarette." That way, both smokers and non-smokers can retain their choices.

3. Why can't non-smokers go somewhere else?
I hate this argument because it is extremely divisive. It just reminds me of going back to a time of segregation, and that's dangerous. Should smokers and non-smokers have separate bars and restaurants? Once again, this is a way of defining people by their habits, not as individuals (which I mentioned in #1).

What's funny (and sad at the same time) is that it's typically the same person who says, "It's not fair, this is discrimination!" followed by, "Can't non-smokers go somewhere else?"

I hate it when people apply standards to others and don't apply those same standards to themselves. Apparently, according to this person, it's not okay to discriminate against smokers, yet discrimination against non-smokers is no problem!

Now believe me, I follow my own advice. I imagine, "What if I was a smoker? Would I step outside?" And the answer is a strong YES. Yes, I would. It's not hard to simply step outside to smoke, I would do it as a common courtesy toward others regardless of the smoking ban. I don't see why it's so hard for anyone else.

Also, the majority of people in the United States are non-smokers. Only 23% of adult men and 19% of adult women smoke. It's really not fair to argue that this minority of people should be allowed to go everywhere and that the majority of Americans should go somewhere else.

But getting back on topic, sometimes when people say non-smokers should go somewhere else, they point out the existence of smoking and non-smoking sections at restaurants. Although I think it's a well-intended step toward trying to keep everyone happy, the different sections still don't take into consideration many other things. What about a group of people who are a mix of smokers and non-smokers? What about the very obvious smoke that drifts into the non-smoking section (because let's face it, half a wall or no wall at all, the smoke isn't just going to stay out of the non-smoking section because the signs say so)? What about the non-smoking employees who work in the smoking section?

When a habit invades other people's space, there should be a limit. If a woman has a boss who sexually harasses her at work, are we going to say, "Why can't the woman go somewhere else or get a different job?" No, we are going to address the harassment. Or at least, I hope we are.

So main point here: If smokers simply step outside to smoke, both smokers and non-smokers can still go anywhere and everywhere. No one has to "go somewhere else."

4. If people go to bars to drink, why can't they smoke? Both actions are harmful and legal.
Once again, this is a matter of invading other people's space. To get right down to it, both drinkers and non-drinkers can go to a bar, but if a drinker drinks around a non-drinker, does that directly affect the non-drinker? Is the non-drinker suddenly going to be swimming in alcohol? Will the alcohol somehow get into the non-drinker's system, causing them to be drunk? If they go to a bar a lot but never drink, will they still be at risk for alcohol-related cirrhosis?

Now let's change this around. If a smoker smokes around a non-smoker, does it directly affect the non-smoker? Will the non-smoker be surrounded by smoke? Will the smoke get into the non-smoker's system? If a non-smoker is around cigarette smoke a lot, will they be at risk for smoking-related health problems, like cancer and emphysema?

Changes things, doesn't it?

5. The ban hurts businesses.
People who say this fail to realize that the Nebraska Restaurant Association backs the ban, and not one of the 700 businesses in the association have complained about the ban. Not a single one!

At first, the ban was somewhat more favorable toward certain businesses. For example, it originally was going to only ban smoking in bars that serve food, while bars that don't would still be allowed to have smoking inside. This was later ruled unconstitutional, which is why the ban now applies to all bars.

As to business in general, I just can't imagine a smoker refusing to go anywhere after the ban simply because they won't be allowed to smoke inside. If they choose to stay home and never go out to eat or hit up the bars - well, that's pretty extreme, and those few extremists probably don't make up even half a percent of a business's customers.

In fact, I think the smoking ban will help businesses, because it will encourage more people (like myself, for instance) to go out to places because they won't run the risk of coming home reeking of smoke, coughing for a week straight or simply getting sick to their stomachs after breathing so much smoke. Those are the exact reasons why I rarely go out to the bars (and all of my friends who live at the bars wonder why they never see me!).

Also, theoretically, a business can save money by not having to pay so much towards employees' health. If even one employee is healthier because of the ban and, as a result, is not required to go to the doctor as often, voila! The business just saved money on insurance.

6. Second-hand smoke doesn't actually hurt anyone.
I'm always baffled by the people who say this. They believe reports of second-hand smoke dangers and health risks are some government conspiracy. That, or they're scrambling for an argument - anything - because they have nothing else.

7. I think they're just trying to make me quit. And you know what? I'm just gonna smoke more!
Ok, Jeremy, you do that.


For the most part, I think people who get defensive about the ban may be confused. Some of them claim the ban will mean they can't smoke in their own homes or their cars (strangely, my friends who smoke always step outside their non-smoking rented apartments or ask before lighting up in my car, all without complaint). Others think it's the government's first steps to outlawing smoking altogether.

Here's what the ban will do: Make smoking in public indoor places illegal. That's it.
It's not extreme.
It's not a conspiracy.
It's going to be okay.

**What are your for/against arguments on the smoking ban? Let me know in the comments! I don't want to leave any good points out of my editorial!


See also:
WOWT-DT Omaha: "Smoking ban passes in Nebraska legislature."
Lincoln Journal Star: "Heineman signs smoking ban."
Join Together: "Nebraska court voids exceptions to smoking ban."
American Heart Association: Smoking cessation
Debate: Should smoking be allowed in public places?