The push for a smoke-free Ithaca has been gathering steam for years. It has coincided with a nationwide attempt to push a once-ubiquitous segment of our society to the fringes. The arguments for smoking bans tend to follow a pattern: Smoking bans are necessary because smoking is unhealthy, and thus inherently "wrong;" smoking causes harm to others via second-hand smoke; society incurs an increased and significant cost because of smokers' health problems (despite the fact that smokers tend to die earlier and incur shorter long-term health problems because of that fact); that smokers will change their minds about smoking because of the ban or that the public condemnation will shame smokers into making healthier choices.
But we ask our readers and legislators to be reasonable. Does any of this seem like legislating right and wrong?
The hyperbolic fear of smoking shared by some of our legislators and Common Councilors - few of whom are smokers themselves - is not always based on reality. We urge our readers to do some research into the effects of second-hand smoke. There has been much dispute about the danger of second-hand smoke in outdoor areas, and many scientists disagree with the fear of second-hand smoke that drives much of the smoking-ban legislation.
According to an article addressing smoking bans by Thomas A. Lambert from the Washington Post in 2006, the authors of the largest study of the effects of tobacco smoke ever conducted found no "causal relationship between exposure to [environmental tobacco smoke] and tobacco-related mortality," though they acknowledged that "a small effect" cannot be ruled out. Is this nebulous "science" worth restricting our rights to choose a pursuit of (legal) happiness?
It's easy to not care about smoking bans when you don't smoke. But if everyone only cared about the rights that they exercise, we'd be in a lot of trouble. When a business owner or an individual chooses not to allow smoking on his or her property, it is a decision to be respected and perhaps admired. But we refuse to stand by while our Common Council tries to inhibit our ability to exercise our rights in public places through what essentially smacks of moral legislating. How about a ban on that?