Growing up around a cloud of tobacco smoke, thanks to my dear old pops, I developed somewhat of a tolerance to the carcinogenic fumes that stank up the house worse than boiled eggs on a hot summer day.
However, I got to a point later in childhood where I absolutely could not stand the aroma or feeling of cigarette smoke in my lungs. I would drive my dad crazy about his habit and do things like roll down the car window in 20 degree weather to avoid breathing in smoke.
Despite my futile attempts to get him to stop smoking, he could not be moved. We did, however, reach a compromise. He promised to start smoking outside the house and not at all in his truck when I was around. That compromise stands to this day. It’s one of the many mutual respects we have for one another. It’s his habit, and it’s his right to smoke. At the same time, it’s my right not to inhale cancer-causing agents.
If applied properly, the smoking ban for the city of Starkville can do the same thing regarding people in the masses. Compromise is the key word here. I’ve heard arguments from both sides of the table: ‹¨Smoking should be banned because it’s harmful.‹¨ ‹¨Well, it’s your choice to go to a restaurant or club that allows smoking, not the smoker’s.‹¨
The issue should not take place on sides; rather, a compromise should be met to keep both smokers and non-smokers content. Sometimes designated sections just won’t cut it.
I support the smoking ban, but only parts of it. I do agree that smoking should be banned in restaurants, but only in dining areas. The majority of people who go to a restaurant go to eat and socialize, not to smoke. Restaurants should have smoking rooms that patrons can go in and sit down before or after a meal to wind down with a nice cigarette or cigar, maybe even a drink.
After all, smoking rooms have worked in the past and present with country clubs, business offices and, yes, even restaurants.
With smoking rooms, both smokers and non-smokers alike can enjoy their dining experience. It can be relatively inexpensive for the business to construct one, and it can encourage some healthy social interaction amongst smokers who may not normally talk to one another. Besides, anyone who needs to smoke and eat at the same time has a serious addiction problem as it is.
When it comes to bars, banning smoking is an illogical move. People go out to have a good time and indulge in their habits, whether that’s having a drink with friends, desperately trying to pick up women/men or lighting up.
However, it is pretty ridiculous when you walk into a bar and a thick blanket of smoke engulfs you. People who don’t smoke usually find smoke unpleasant, so they can’t fully enjoy their drink or conversation with all the fumes in the air.
It all goes back to compromise. Bars should find a way to appease all of their customers, and while it can be a difficult task, it can be done. Smoking sections would work better in bars than in restaurants, and the whole smoking room principle can be applied to bars as well.
It’s a proven fact that cigarette smoke is dangerous. It’s not debatable unless you’re one of those people who like to debate the color of the sky. Many people choose not to smoke because of their awareness of the dangers presented by smoking, such as various respiratory cancers, emphysema and, for pregnant women, possible birth defects suffered by their children. This is common knowledge that everyone has heard a million times, and it even gets on my nerves to say it.
But the point is, if someone doesn’t desire to fall victim to these complications, that’s their choice, and these choices should not be hindered by those who smoke. That’s why the proposed ban should be taken seriously.
Smokers should not be stopped from smoking, but non-smokers should not be held back from having a good time because of cigarette smoke, either. It’s a really difficult scenario, but the fact of the matter is that something needs to be done.