Smoking ban promotes good health

The recent decision to enact a smoking ban in most Indianapolis restaurants has created a stir between those who light up and those who don't. But we think the importance of this decision lies in workers rights - many aren't thinking about the employees of these restaurants. While second-hand smoke might not critically harm a person's health when exposed for roughly an hour at a time, the employees who wait on these smokers have to deal with it, whether or not they're a smoker. When these employees are exposed for years and years, second-hand smoke is bound to make a crucial impact on their health. \nWe see this ban as an attempt by our government to help us stay healthy. A reduction in the exposure to the damaging elements of tobacco could drastically lower the number of people harmed by smoking and second-hand smoking.\nBut we think this ordinance will confuse patrons because of the ban's inconsistent guidelines. Any restaurant that doesn't allow anyone younger than 18 is exempt from the ordinance. We feel Indianapolis should take a "do it or don't" approach. Bloomington successfully went smoke-free and businesses didn't find themselves having to decide whether or not to permit or exclude an age group. California and New York have been smoke-free as well and are famous for setting a precedent for legislation around the nation. \nBut the underlying issue here is not who is smoke-free and who isn't -- it's workers rights and what they are entitled to: good health. \nThe road to hell is paved with good intentions. The risks of smoking are well known, but the effects of second-hand smoke are debatable. Yet the issue is not whether or not smoking is harmful. It is. The issue is the government's right to institute a smoking ban. \nThe first and ninth amendments to the Bill of Rights would suggest not. The first amendment enumerates our basic freedoms; the ninth amendment protects against government interference with rights not specified. Smoking bans directly violate free markets, a necessary cornerstone of democracy. \nThe ban's effect on business is mortifying. Unable to deal with the loss of clientele, restaurants are forced to cut staff or shut down. Don't think that the only people affected are those in hospitality. Patrons flee to establishments outside city limits, costing the city to lose vital revenue. A May 21 article in the Star Tribune of Minneapolis cites a decline in the Lions Club charity gambling events and points out both the risks and general nuisance of having smokers loiter outside. \nProhibiting smoking in restaurants is not solving the problem. It is moving the problem elsewhere. Business owners should have the right to choose for themselves. It is just as easy for a non-smoker to walk out of a restaurant as is it for a smoker to walk in. I am not a proponent of smoking; I am a supporter of constitutional rights. Something tells me that our tobacco-farming founders, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, would be rolling in their graves.\n- Dissent by Lindsay Kerrigan