Banning smoking seems to be a growing trend in cities and towns all across the nation. More and more city councils, such as the one right here in our own Madison, WI, are trying to pass legislation banning smoking in not only the regular public areas and establishments but also bars and restaurants.

There are two main reasons for the smoking The first is “public health and comfort” and the second is “employee health and safety”. While rooted in truth, both have evolved into nothing more than propaganda.

The “public health” concern is that non-smokers may be exposed to the toxic second-hand smoke constantly wafting up from burning tobacco. I agree, but only to an extent.

To preserve the health of non-smokers, smoking should be banned in every place that non-smoker ‘must’ visit. This includes government buildings and offices, airports, train and bus stations, bus stops and shelters, schools, hospitals, clinics and other medical and dental offices. Nobody, smoker or not, should ever be required to visit a facility where smoking is not banned.

In addition, smoking should be banned from within a 20 foot radius of public entrances of smoke-free facilities. Non-smokers should never be required to walk through a cloud of smoke to visit a ‘must’ or ‘required’ building.

They key words here are ‘must’ and ‘required’. Nobody must visit or is ever required to visit a mall, store, shop, restaurant, movie theater or other privately owned business. Such businesses, facilities and buildings should never be required to be smoke-free.

If a non-smoker or anti-smoker doesn’t wish to be exposed to smoke, he or she should not visit the facility. Simple ‘free market’ economics will dictate how each facility handles the smoking issue. If the business owner receives enough comments either for or against smoking he or she will most certainly make a decision to either allow or disallow smoking in order to preserve his or her livelihood.

No private business owner should ever be legally required to either allow or disallow smoking. Such choices need to be made by the business owner and patrons and not legislators and lawyers.

The problem is that there are too many whining weenies calling up their activist council men and women, complaining about the smoke at the local bar. The general public has lost sight of that fact that they do not have the ‘right’ to visit any establishment they choose.

The beauty of the American way of business is that we have choices. We can choose McDonalds or KFC, Blockbuster Video or Hollywood Video, cable TV or satellite TV, Sears or Boston Store. Nobody is holding a gun to our heads forcing us to visit any business.

If I decide that I don’t like the service I receive at my local car dealership I’ll go to another. If I feel that I’m not getting the best value at a local appliance store I’ll check out another. If I don’t like the atmosphere at a local bar I’ll visit another.

I, along with every reasonable human being, would never expect the car dealership to change their business model, staff and products to meet my individual preferences. I likewise wouldn’t expect the appliance store to change for my personal benefit and I certainly wouldn’t expect the bar owner to kick out the regular clientele so that I can enjoy my time at the establishment.

The same holds true for smoking. If I don’t want to be around smoke I’ll frequent the businesses in my area that are smoke-free. If I really want the product or service offered at a business where smoking is allowed I’ll simply ‘suck it up’ and deal with the smoke. It’s my own personal choice.

The other point the pro-ban folks are pushing is the employment angle. They reason that employees should not be required to work in smoke-filled environments because it is hazardous to their health.

As with the customer, however, the employees of any business are there because they choose to be, taking into account all of the aspects of the business from fair practices to environment.

If a person is anti-smoking I’d probably recommend that he or she finds a job at a non-smoking business instead of landing a job as a bar tender and then suing the bar owner because he or she is not providing a ‘safe’ working environment by allowing smoking at the establishment.

Anti-smokers continually harp about public health; smoking adversely affects the health of innocent passers-by and should therefore be banned. Let’s think on that one for a minute; how many other activities should be banned using that logic?

I’ll start with driving which is obviously a risk to public health and even life. Then there’s hunting; every year ‘innocent victims’ are wounded or killed. Flying is a proven risk to public health and life. Hamburgers have been proven to contribute to obesity thus having a detrimental effect on public health. Alcohol is most definitely a risk to public health as is almost every medication, both prescription and over-the-counter.

Look, folks, the point is this; there are hundreds if not thousands of activities that present real and serious risks to public health. Short of creating an environmentally controlled rubber room for each and every American we must rely on each and every person to make the right decision for him or herself.

If you are anti-smoking, don’t go where the smokers go! It’s that simple! If you don’t like the food, don’t eat there. If you don’t like the products, don’t shop there. If you don’t like the air, don’t breathe there!

Just as you have the right to live your life smoke-free, smokers have they right to smoke tobacco to their hearts content. When you begin legislating your personal choices you stand at the top of a slippery slope. Isn’t that what discrimination is? Making laws based on personal choices regardless of the rights of others?

Think about it.