Column: Where there is smoke...

While the Illinois Lung Association and the C-U smoke-free alliance swears to continue the struggle to include Champaign-Urbana in the fight against passive smoking, businesses are mighty angry at the thought of government involvement in their private establishments.

But all businesses set up to serve the community are in a number of ways responsible to government in order to ensure safety and sanitation of their practices. They must get a license to operate and serve and they have to follow certain rules and regulations from washing their hands to wearing hairnets.

I agree that business owners have a prerogative to make their own decisions and govern themselves via personal choice. But in light of public health pursuits, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that making a restaurant smoke-free will be in the public interest and hence is a proper exercise of government authority.

Passive smoking, or secondhand smoke, has been rated by the Center of Disease Prevention and Control as the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the country. It also gives rise to a vast amount of other illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, lung cancer and stroke. If smokers are willing to take such risks with their own health, the law can at least offer some protection to non-smokers from such illnesses. The law would also work in favor of employees, who unlike patrons, have no choice but to be exposed to the secondhand smoke.

The main argument owners broach is that business will cease to be lucrative for owners and smokers will stop coming in for a meal and loss of revenue will result. But according to the 2002 statistics provided by the Illinois public health department, only 16.6 percent of residents in Champaign County are smokers while 83.4 percent are non-smokers. If these statistics are accurate, the ban could not possibly do much economic damage to the eating habits of the 17 percent of smokers.

And realistically, how many smokers are not going to visit their favorite restaurant just because they are now smoke-free? My guess is not too many. They can smoke before their meal and after their meal or even go out for a drag in between their meal. And if there are a few die-hard smoke addicts who refuse, who is to say there won't be new customers who previously didn't go there because they were allergic to smoke or simply couldn't deal with the foul smell?

Bars, on the other hand, are of a different breed. Although I'm not a smoker, I know many smokers who wouldn't mind putting it out for dinner. Nevertheless, I was told that cigarettes and shots or cocktails go together in some sort of indispensable combination. Thus, I doubt many smokers will be willing to put it out for a whole night. It would only give rise to a back alley full of smokers outside the bar for those who need that puff in between drinks. And bars that have an outside seating arrangement will have an advantage because smokers will tend to flock in that area and those places without outdoor seating will lose revenue.

I think a restaurant ban on smoking is feasible and should be supported by the community. I applaud the 115 restaurants in Champaign that have chosen to become smoke-free in the past few years. As far as bars go, a public hearing will be conducted in January by Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing for Urbana bar owners, employees and the general public. All concerns will be voiced and those supporting and opposing the ban should be able to deliberate until they can reach a consensus.

The smoke-free environment is not going away. It is a catching trend that has resonated into legislation banning smoking in workplaces, restaurants and bars in ten states already, Washington D.C being the latest to convert on Nov. 8. It will not be long before it translates into a major movement worldwide.

Shouger Merchant is a senior in Communications. Her columns appear every Wednesday. She can be reached at opinions@ dailyillini.com.