An abriged version of this article was published in the November 28, 2008 edition of The Parkville (Missouri) Luminary.  This version was published in the February 5, 2009 edition of The Platte County (Missouri) Sun Gazette.

Generally speaking, I think that the idea of more laws is a bad one,   
especially as those laws apply to individuals. On the other hand, I     
must point out that bans on smoking in enclosed common spaces are good 
public policy.                                                         
                                                                         
It appears that Parkville (Missouri) will enact SOME sort of ban on smoking in     
public spaces. Much of the commentary thus far has focused on the       
various rationales for initiating such a ban, or reasons why it should 
be limited in one way or another. The voices have been reasonable if   
not in harmony.                                                         
                                                                         
The primary good which comes out of limiting public smoking is to       
prevent non-consenting parties from being exposed to second-hand smoke,
which is classified as a known human carcinogen, and therefore highly   
undesirable. But of all the reasons discussed regarding the             
implementation of a ban, there is one factor which I find to be         
under-expressed. That factor is worker protection.                     
                                                                         
Workers deserve (always, but especially in difficult economic times) to
labor in workplaces which do not endanger their health. That is true   
regardless of whether some of those workers themselves are smokers,     
because ALL workers deserve comprehensive legal protection which       
applies to the lowest common denominator, so to speak. That's not       
living in a nanny state, a world dictated by priggish moralists, as     
some have suggested - it's simply a matter of fairness. A worker,       
dependent on his or her employer for a paycheck, is not in a position   
in which he or she can grant consent in a fully independent way.       
                                                                         
Should there be exceptions to this standard? For example, should an     
establishment which specializes in tobacco - a smoke shop - which       
already existed in a city before an indoor smoking ban was instituted, 
be forced to operate in the same way that, say, a daycare facility     
does? In all likelihood, anyone who works in a smoke shop is going to   
be a smoker. But we should be very careful in allowing exemptions,     
especially permanent ones. A safe workplace is something everyone       
should expect. And bars and restaurants are not businesses patronized   
only by smokers, nor are they likely to employ only smokers.           
                                                                         
On the other hand, we as a society should make accommodations for       
smokers. For example, I think bans on all public smoking, including in 
outdoors spaces, are a bit draconian. While I do not care to run a     
smoky gauntlet at the door to every public indoor space I enter or     
leave, I think there can be arrangements made for smokers to get their 
fix. Likewise, outdoor public spaces, such as sporting venues, should   
have sections reserved for smokers.                                     
                                                                         
While I support the right of smokers to partake of tobacco, I think     
that they should reciprocate in kind by behaving in a socially         
responsible manner. One particularly irksome habit is for smokers to   
throw their cigarette butts wherever they happen to be, as if that's   
not littering. Well, it is.                                             
                                                                         
That support of smokers' rights notwithstanding, I believe tobacco     
companies are particularly unworthy of patronage. These companies have 
a legacy of leadership by conniving executives and representation by   
shifty, slick-talking individuals. Both groups have lied to the public 
over the years about the health effects of smoking.                     
                                                                         
The penalty paid by Parkville businesses which formerly featured       
smoking should be tempered by the fact that this town is not the first 
in the metro to adopt a smoking ban. Something on the order of         
seventeen other communities in the Kansas City metro area, including   
Kansas City itself, have instituted bans, so Parkville businesses       
affected will not stand out especially starkly in comparison to         
businesses in nearby cities.                                           
                                                                         
A good number of people I know and love have been and are smokers. One 
of them was my mother. After 60 years of practicing a habit she knew   
was unhealthy but maintained anyway, she died from lung cancer. Such a 
lifetime of abuse has consequences, and of course my mother shared in   
the responsibility for that. But she was a product of her culture, part
of which was shaped by disinformation peddled by the tobacco companies.
                                                                         
It is time for the public to punish these companies by breaking the     
smoking habit, thereby cutting off the revenue lifeblood to these       
addiction-promoting rackets. One way to assist in that effort is to     
allow for fewer places in which smoking is tolerated. A good law is a   
benefit to the community which promulgates it. Parkville should approve
a common-sense, comprehensive ban on smoking in indoor public spaces.