Kendrick Wilson

I don't recall our government having to apologize to druggies for taking away their needles, or to drunk drivers for taking away their licenses. Doing so would be ridiculous. Why make a special exception for smokers? Smokers are just as big a threat to public health as drug addicts and drunk drivers. Smoking is undoubtedly an ingrained part of American culture, but so is alcohol, and to some degree, so are drugs. Smokers demand special treatment because we have so willingly given it to them in the past.

In 1999, thanks to then City Council Member Janet Marcus, the Tucson City Council passed the ban on smoking in restaurants. What a victory! Workers in restaurants as well as patrons no longer had to be asphyxiated by the carcinogenic fumes spewed out of the cigarettes smoked by a small minority of customers. The ban on smoking in restaurants was a wonderful victory, but the arguments made against it were nauseating.

The restaurant industry cried government shoving "unnecessary" laws down their throats and hurting their businesses. Wouldn't it be great to round up those restaurateurs who predicted such a dire future and ask for an explanation now that the ban has been in place for several years and restaurant business in Tucson is at an all time high?

There are, however, four restaurants that have suffered as a result of the ban. Each one is a bigger dump than the next, and each one has received far more attention from the press than was reasonable.

First, there's Molly G's, the epitome of the trashy truck stop. Molly G's has violated the ban and claims it would put them out of business. Anyone feeling overwhelmed with sympathy for this tiny restaurant should take a drive by it (Fort Lowell Road just east of First Avenue). I'm sure most would agree ö good riddance if the ban forces this place out of business.

The second restaurant may receive more sympathy from UA students. It's the Safehouse Coffee House on East Speedway Boulevard. This restaurant is violating the ban as well, as a large percentage of its business came from selling cigarettes. I, however, won't shed any tears if and when the Safehouse closes its doors for the last time.

Third is the Waffle House on I-10. Need I say more?

Finally, there is Denny's. This restaurant, as well as the Waffle House, has qualified for a hardship exemption. While the clause in the city's law providing for hardship exemptions was necessary for the ban to be passed, could someone please explain to me why it is necessary to provide this exemption so we can save the sacred Waffle House and the sanctified Denny's?

Restaurants clearly don't think the government should be telling them whether or not they should allow smoking. They are hoping to turn the debate away from the health issue towards a business issue. Amazingly, they don't pursue this type of debate when it comes to sanitation issues. Restaurants, deep down inside, don't want the government telling them not to store raw chicken on their cutting boards or to require their employees to wash their hands after blowing their noses. But, they are smart enough to realize that the public won't tolerate that argument. The public, however, foolishly tolerates the argument that banning smoking in restaurants to protect public health is government gone wild. More Americans die of lung cancer than dysentery. Are the lives lost to lung cancer somehow less important, less valuable?

Thankfully, recent developments have taken a positive turn. Rather than the city reversing it's ban, Pima County joined the trend, and banned smoking in all restaurants countywide in 2001.

Smokers often argue that in America, they should have the right to smoke, whether or not they dramatically increase their risk for cancer and a multitude of other diseases. Perhaps it is every American's right to destroy his or her body and life if he or she chooses to do so. Nonetheless, overwhelming evidence that second hand smoke is even more hazardous to one's health than first hand smoke eliminates the validity of this argument when people demand the right to smoke in public areas.

Apologizing to smokers for requiring them to step outside to smoke only encourages them to demand more and more. The time has come to protect the health of those who for so long have been given no choice but to be subjected to second hand smoke.