Smokers who want to break the habit may find it easier if an Arizona smoking ban that is being debated at the Legislature is passed.

On Saturday, legislators, professors and health advocates gathered to discuss the topic, "Is Arizona ready for smoke-free workplaces/public places for all?"

According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, 18 percent of Americans smoke, and 70 percent of them are trying to quit.

"Limiting smoking in the workplace reduces the number of cigarettes smoked per day, which helps those who want to quit," said Merrill Eisenberg, a professor at the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health.

One of the advantages of such a bill is that it would not affect 73 percent of the employers in the state who already have such regulations in place, Eisenberg said.

Rep. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, is the sponsor of the bill. She said it has faced opposition from some groups arguing that it is more about property rights, economics or political parties than public health.

"It's not a democratic bill, it's a health bill," Lopez said.

Troy Corder, principal of Critical Public Relations, a public relations firm in Phoenix, said information from a November public opinion survey of 600 people in Arizona supported the argument that the economy would not be affected.

"Thirty-two percent said they would visit restaurants more if they were smoke-free, so economics don't play in," Corder said. "Twenty-four percent would go to bars more."

Eisenberg said the proposed smoking ban is no different from other workplace health and cleanliness standards, but also acknowledged that public debate is necessary.

"We need to debate whether the public good should be placed in front of the rights of the individual," Eisenberg said.

Panelists hoped to impart a message that lobbying for the bill must focus on public health.

"Don't compromise our health," Corder said. "Our message is that we're limiting smoking, not eliminating it."

Eisenberg said that tobacco use costs Americans $75 million a year. Statistics show that employers spend money on smokers because employees who smoke have significantly more accidents and use more sick days.

Debra Golden-Davis, a financial aid counselor for the UA, said she supports the bill because she is very sensitive to smoke. She recalled "Metamorphosis," a play performed in one of the smaller theaters on campus, which she attended last year. She said smoke from the performance forced her to leave before it ended.

"Two people on stage were smoking cigars in the play, and I had to leave," she said. She was upset because she paid for the tickets, but could not stay for the whole play.

The proposed bill includes six exceptions where smoking in public would be allowed, one of which is exactly what Golden-Davis described.

The bill states that it "does not prohibit smoking ... that is part of a play, stage production, ballet or similar performance if the smoking is confined to the stage."

Scientific studies have shown that secondhand smoke can cause harm, said Ron Watson, a public health professor.

Watson cited studies done on campus that concluded that as the intake of secondhand smoke increases, so does the damage done to the body, specifically the heart, lungs and immune system.

The bill would be a preventative measure for some of these negative health effects because it intends to reduce the exposure both smokers and nonsmokers have to secondhand smoke.

Watson also said UA studies showed "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

He said lab rats were treated with antioxidants after exposure to secondhand smoke, but their health was still worse than those who had not been exposed to smoke at all.

About 20 people came to the discussion, including professors, government officials, Tucsonans and proponents of Arizona Clearing the Air.