Jed Pressgrove is a graduate student in sociology. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Starkville smokers will be standing outside of their favorite restaurants and bars for a long time. Through governmental means better explained in the news article in Tuesday’s Reflector, the Starkville Board of Aldermen made the smoking ban ordinance a more permanent law. Usually, this type of lawmaking bothers me. However, based on my personal observation, it seems clear that the board only wants to represent the views of Starkville citizens on this particular issue. So yes, democracy is working to a certain extent in Starkville, even though that’s not necessarily a good thing (for a historical example, see the decision to elect Hitler). Regardless, this article isn’t about democracy. A more interesting aspect of this event is the lack of debate from Starkville citizens. I was present at the meeting in which the board first passed the smoking ordinance. Although the anti-smoking crowd was better organized, other citizens still stood up and shared their concerns about the downsides to smoking bans. Apparently, this debate was absent from the recent board meeting. Starkville Mayor Dan Camp specifically offered the opportunity for dissent, yet no one spoke.
This could be a hasty estimation. At the same time, it wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that negative opinions on smoking bans have lost common ground and sheer presence in Starkville. Strangely enough, the traditional conservatism of the Mississippi populace is slowly eroding. After all, Starkville set the trend. A few other Mississippi cities have adopted similar smoking policies, and Columbus could possibly be next. These reiterations of the Starkville law show that this phenomenon isn’t limited to a liberal college atmosphere. The current ban on Sunday alcohol sales shows that maybe Starkville isn’t as liberal as some might suggest.
The very foundation of the smoking ban is in opposition to traditional conservative views on both property rights and personal rights.
From a legal and ethical standpoint, I can identify with the argument against smoking bans. People performing or allowing legal activities on their private property should be acceptable. Of course, the counterargument would involve public health concerns, despite the fact that we haven’t exactly confirmed the absolute toxicity of secondhand smoke. People are exposed to a variety of unhealthy atmospheres during their lives in America; therefore, only an experiment with proper control and treatment groups could make the definite link. Such an experiment would be practically difficult and ethically questionable, however.
But let’s ignore the lack of methodological means to indicate whether secondhand smoke undoubtedly causes cancer. The fact is that no one forces people to enter or work at the private establishments of other citizens. They willingly choose to enter or work at the establishments, and it should be quite obvious to them whether they will inhale secondhand smoke.
With that knowledge of the legal activity of smoking, the customer or worker cannot claim foul play by the owner, even if secondhand smoke is actually harmful. Bottom line, smoking is legal despite its disregard for public and individual health, and you are voluntarily on the private property of a taxpaying citizen. More counterarguments may follow. For instance, perhaps one could argue that government has the right to step in and protect its citizens from property owners. OK, that’s fine, so why not ban drinking at restaurants and bars? An honest and logical person cannot claim that offering alcohol at such establishments doesn’t possibly foster more drunken driving accidents, public fights, poisoning and a myriad of other negative consequences from alcohol consumption.
Another counterargument is that allowing cigarettes in your establishment pre-selects customers. But many businesses pre-select customers. Movie theaters pre-select those who can see, adult entertainment stores pre-select those who enjoy pornography, and children’s theme parks pre-select the younger audience (and their suffering parents). Those who are not pre-selected may still visit those places, but their lack of satisfaction in the venues is a ridiculous aspect to legislate. In conclusion, the most notable aspect about this legislation is not that a certain group is right or wrong. The traditional conservative mold of Mississippi has been cracked, and politicians are touting this law as “progressive.”
Progressive, eh? Tautological rhetoric at its finest.