We’ve all heard the predictions that 2009 will be a year of change. One change already underway here in Oregon is the final implementation of the statewide smoking ban. Smoking was already prohibited in Oregon restaurants and most other workplaces, and some cities have also been enforcing the ban in bars and other establishments for years. But as of Jan. 1, smoking is also prohibited in all bars, bowling alleys and bingo halls, leaving only tribal casinos, cigar bars and smoke shops as places where smokers are free to light up.
The sides of the smoking ban argument have been all but exhausted, especially in Eugene, where the ban was preemptively enforced back in 2002. Those in favor support non-smokers’ right to breathe clean air anywhere they choose, while those opposed argue that their rights, either as smokers or business owners, are being trampled on. The Emerald editorial board certainly recognizes the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, and acknowledges the value of smoke-free establishments for those who wish to avoid it. But we can’t help but wonder: Is Oregon’s smoking ban just another step in the direction of outlawing smoking completely?
Many will scoff at this suggestion, and it indeed seems farfetched to imagine smoking being completely illegal, especially considering the size and influence of the American tobacco industry. Ask your parents and they will likely tell you when they were in college, the idea of smoking being banned in bars and restaurants seemed ludicrous. As recently as the 1970s, there were many American universities where it was perfectly acceptable to smoke inside a classroom. Really. Now, you’d be hard pressed to find a public building anywhere in Oregon in which you could smoke. Is it so hard to believe, then, that in another 30 years, smoking itself could be outlawed?
Twenty-two states enforce statewide smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces; 12 more enforce partial smoking bans. Countries such as Australia, Canada, England, France, India, Italy, Norway, Sweden and many others enforce nationwide bans in workplaces and/or restaurants.
Cigarette smoke is undoubtedly bad for one’s health, and people should not be forced to breathe it in when they want to go out for a drink. But couldn’t there be some middle ground? Banning smoking from all but a few public places could seriously damage bar owners’ and others’ business, and is a decision that should be left up to the owners’ control. In order to curb smoking, the state could offer tax breaks to smoke-free establishments, rather than taking the most restrictive course possible. Let’s not forget that if an individual wishes to avoid secondhand smoke, he or she can simply choose not to go to establishments where smoking is allowed.
The smoking ban is often touted as a measure to protect employees, such as bartenders and food servers, who work at businesses where smoking was previously allowed. Again, people can choose not to work at an establishment where smoking is allowed. Many will argue this would significantly limit employment opportunities for those individuals, and some bartenders do not favor the ban.
“Protecting workers is simply the polite fiction by which nonsmokers have imposed their will on an increasingly unpopular minority,” writes Portland bartender and writer Jacob Grier in an opinion piece in The Oregonian. Grier argues if the ban is really about protecting employees, then full-service gas stations and other businesses should also be targeted. “While we sit comfortably in our cars, attendants spend their entire workdays breathing gasoline fumes,” he writes. “The Legislature even lists this as one justification for banning self-service. ‘Exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids,’ contends the law.”
Though comparing smoking in a bar to pumping gas may seem like grasping at straws, it does call into question the reasons behind the smoking ban. Secondhand smoke is harmful, yes, but it is unfair to require all businesses, save a precious few, to ban it. The restriction is disproportionate to the harm caused, and a total outlaw of smoking does not seem such a far leap away. As smokers become increasingly ostracized for choosing to smoke, it sometimes seems they are viewed as second-class citizens simply for making a choice that is their right to make.
[email protected]