Rusty Saber: Smoking debate has legitimate points on both sides

Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.

The smoking-versus-nonsmoking debate in restaurants is one neither side can win. It is a contentious issue similar in nature to that of the death penalty in that neither side is likely to yield to the other.

Supporters and detractors of the death penalty can present ethical, logical and emotional arguments supporting their causes. Both sides base their strongly held views on core values concerning the value of human life. One side values the life of the victim of a murder, the other, the life of the murderer. No amount of pleading by either will persuade the other.

Smoking in public places may not be an issue as emotionally charged as the death penalty, but the arguments on both sides can become just as ethically, logically and emotionally laden.

Time was when people smoked almost anywhere. Changes in acceptance of smoking in public are remarkable. Smokers then were in the majority. Today nonsmokers and former smokers far outnumber smokers.

The core value driving the anti-smoking fervor is health, and the evidence is overwhelming that smoking is a health hazard. And most people accept the claim that second-hand smoke is a hazard. But one thing is certain, second-hand tobacco smoke is unpleasant for nonsmokers to inhale.

Smokers' core value is freedom of choice. Government prohibition of smoking in restaurants is, as they see it, a breech of personal freedom. Further, some owners of facilities where smoking is banned by government believe they should be able to run their places of business as they please.

As a former college debate coach, I am accustomed to studying debatable questions with valid arguments presented by both sides. And as a former smoker who has developed negative feelings about breathing cigarette smoke, I am happy that the Springfield City Council has declared most restaurants smoke-free. I have never had much faith in smoking and nonsmoking areas in restaurants. Smoke doesn't stay put. On one hand, therefore, I agree with the staunch anti-smoking group that believes the City Council should have gone all the way and banned smoking everywhere people meet to dine.

However, I understand City Council's dilemma leading to the creation of categories where smoking will be permitted: Restaurants seating fewer than 50 people, or if half of the profit is in alcohol sales, or there was $200,000 in liquor sales last year. Certainly, the vision is farfetched of bar patrons, imbibing adult beverages, refraining from smoking because it is illegal. Enforcement would a headache.

I can understand the plight of restaurant owners who recently appealed to City Council with respect to loss of business due to the smoking ban. Their income is being cut by actions of their government. For them, it's a crisis.

Now City Council is talking about opening the whole thing up to a citywide vote.

Both sides of the debate resonate with me, putting me in direct conflict with myself. I don't want to inhale tobacco smoke in public places. However, I believe that government has no business telling owners who their customers can be. If they do or don't want to serve smokers, it should be their choice, not government's.

Rarely am I so open to such widely conflicting arguments. The issue is far from settled. Many legitimate arguments and counter-arguments will be made before council. As with all truly debatable issues, one side must eventually win. In the end, I predict that government's need to protect public health will prevail over freedom of choice. That's good news and bad news.