Get That Smoke Out Of Here

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has been on a rampage of late as it tries to push for Pennsylvania to ban indoor smoking. Two recent editorials (here and here) have been aimed at strong arming this ban into action. They even go so far as to say:

If our legislators don't get this done, Pennsylvania's new slogan will have to be "America's Ashtray."

Pittsburgh may well become "America's Ashtray," but it has won't be because of individual smoking preferences. The American Lung Associated recently released their State of the Air report and for the first time ever a city outside of California topped one of the lists: Pittsburgh earned the dubious honor.

The press release for the State of the Air report notes:

Pittsburgh moved to the top of the list of cities most polluted by short-term levels of particle pollution, a deadly cocktail of ash, soot, diesel exhaust, chemicals, metals and aerosols that can spike dangerously for hours to weeks on end.

Notice that absent from this list of air pollutant factors is cigarette smoking. Although the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette might be working to ban smoking indoors, it might benefit them to step outside because that's where the real air problem lies.

Personally, I don't smoke nor do I necessarily enjoy the smoke in a restaurant or bar. However, we as individuals have the decision making capacity to not return to an establishment if we don't like the smoking. Smokers have as much of a right to smoke as us nonsmokers have to not smoke. Now, that right shouldn't necessarily guarantee them the ability to smoke inside a public venue, but if a bar or restaurant owner permits smoking then smokers should go ahead and do so.

The medical research on smoking is pretty clear in demonstrating the negatively health impacts. Even secondhand smoke is harmful. Just because smoking has these effects though does not justify banning all smoking indoors. For instance, you can go into McDonalds and buy a Big Mac and fries even though you know it contains an unhealthy amount of calories and trans fats. However, it should be your personal preference what goes into your mouth. This fried meal certainly inversely affect one's health; yet, I think few people would accept banning Big Macs. It would make more sense to go somewhere else and enjoy a healthier alternative rather than imposing an overarching ban.

Being respectful of other people's personal preferences is part of living in a democracy. The government's hand should not be invoked to remove this behavior. People like myself enjoy nonsmoking environments, and surprisingly enough the market responds to these preferences. The Post-Gazette's Editorial makes it seem as if there are no choices for nonsmokers, but nothing could be further from the truth. Smoke Free Pennsylvania already offers a comprehensive list of local nonsmoking places. As more people continue to quit smoking, more venues will cater to this preference. It's not rocket science; it's the power of the market. This may not be the answer that those seeking an indoor ban may be after, but it's at least respectful of other's lifestyle choices.