Editorial: Smoking ban good for C-U

At the gubernatorial debate in Champaign Sunday, four Republican candidates and one Constitutionalist candidate debated the pros and cons of a statewide smoking ban. On Feb. 6, there will be a town hall meeting about the proposed smoking ban in Bloomington, Ill. In September, the Champaign City Council voted down a similar ban that would have prohibited smoking in all public indoor places, including bars and restaurants. All these events have shown that Illinois is concerned about indoor smoking.

There are credible arguments to be made against the ban. Bars and restaurants are, after all, private establishments, who should be free to make choices about the atmosphere of their businesses.

In spite of these concerns, many cities and some states have already enacted a ban on indoor smoking. Chicago, the state of California and the state of New York are some of the major areas that have chosen to go smoke-free.

Following in their footsteps, we feel a ban in the Champaign-Urbana area is not only appropriate, but necessary. Smoking is a personal choice, but when done within the confines of a closed building, it becomes a public health concern. Restaurants and bars have to follow strict regulations regarding the state of their kitchens and the quality and age of their food because straying from those regulations would make people sick. The same logic applies for smoking. Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than inhaled smoke and there is no way to avoid it indoors.

The bans in those cities and states that have enacted them are effective because they are not piecemeal. They are a complete ban over the complete area. We also support a complete ban for the Champaign-Urbana area. While a ban in just one city would be somewhat effective, we feel it will give the other city an unfair commercial advantage. At that Champaign City Council meeting in September, business owners came before the council to argue against the ban, saying a ban would cause them to lose business to neighboring Urbana. If the ban had been proposed in Urbana, different business owners would have probably made the same arguments. We recognize these concerns and therefore advocate a smoking ban over both cities, effectively making the University and its surrounding community smoke free.

We are not opposed to designated smoking areas, which are different from smoking and non-smoking sections. Sections are inherently ineffective because of the nature of smoke. The designated areas would either be semi-outdoors, such as beer gardens or highly ventilated rooms where the smoke would be forced outside and not into the main rooms of the businesses. These would allow smokers to exercise their personal choice to smoke without endangering the health of the other patrons.

However, regardless of the specific concessions smokers are granted, we encourage both cities to collaborate on this legislation and pass a ban.