Charles Shiflett Column February 6, 2005

An Issue That Cuts Across Party Lines

If you want an issue that is supported and opposed by state legislators on both sides of the aisle, I've
got one for you. The Georgia Smoke Free Air Act of 2005 would prohibit indoor smoking in a majority
of public places such as restaurants, hotels, malls, sports arenas, convention centers, and retail
shops statewide.

This legislation is sponsored by State Senator Don Thomas, a physician from Dalton, who briefly
represented a large portion of Bartow County prior to the last redrawing of legislative districts. Don is a
family friend, and I know him to be a decent and honorable man who truly sees second-hand smoke
as a public health issue.

Thomas was recently quoted as saying; "The right of men, women, and children to breathe smoke-free
air supersedes the desire of a person to smoke. We're not trying to make smokers quit, we're just
asking them to step outside."

Thirty-four state senators consisting of 17 Republicans and 17 Democrats have co-signed this bill
virtually ensuring its passage in the senate. Several Republican and Democrat lawmakers have also
announced their opposition to the measure. A similar bill passed the senate last year, but was stalled
by former Democrat Speaker Terry Coleman in the house.

The question is simple… do citizens have the right to breathe air that is free from harmful and foul
smelling tobacco smoke, or do owners and operators of private businesses have a right to operate
their establishments as they see fit?

In recent years several Georgia cities and counties have instituted a hodgepodge of anti-smoking
measures. This has created problems where restaurants and bars in a city with a smoking ordinance
lose business to restaurants and bars in a nearby city that doesn't have a smoking ordinance.

While many bar and restaurant owners oppose any attempt to regulate smoking in their
establishments, others have spoken in favor of Thomas' bill. Those owners in favor of the bill believe a
uniform statewide ordinance would create a level playing field.

This matter cuts to the core of the issue of private property rights. People have a right to smoke.
People also have a right to not breathe second-hand smoke. Many establishments have been divided
into smoking and non-smoking zones, but as one who is severely allergic to tobacco smoke I can tell
you this approach doesn't work.

Many conservatives are of the opinion the free market should resolve this problem. Entrepreneurs
could choose to operate their businesses as either smoking or non-smoking. We each would choose
which places to patronize and everyone would win. Unfortunately, the free-market approach hasn't
panned out.

Additionally, employees of establishments where smoking is allowed are exposed to second-hand
smoke in the course of employment. There is a liability issue here that some anti-tort reform lawyer is
probably salivating over. I could also see claims being filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The courts ruled decades ago that the right of free association does not apply to those operating
public establishments. Using those decisions as a backdrop, it would appear that government now has
the ability to mandate whether private businesses have the right to allow smoking.

In addition to banning smoking indoors, Thomas' bill would prohibit smoking within 25 feet of a public
building to ensure patrons will not be exposed as they enter or leave. The bill does exempt private
residences, tobacco shops, cars, outdoor areas of employment, and get this… corporate offices of
tobacco companies. Hotels would be allowed to set aside up to twenty percent of their rooms for
smokers.

Even if a small business consisted of just the owner him or herself, that person would be prohibited
from smoking in his or her own office. As badly as I despise tobacco smoke, something about that
just doesn't set well with me.

On the other hand, I grow tired of not being able to eat at certain restaurants because of the presence
of smoke. When my sons were still playing baseball, I even had trouble watching their games because
of the abundance of parents and fans smoking around the bleachers.

If you view this as a health issue as Dr. Thomas does, then it is easy to support his initiative. If you
see it as an invasion of privacy, then you have to weigh whose rights are being violated… smokers' or
those forced to breathe second-hand smoke. If I were serving in the state legislature I would reluctantly
support this measure, but it would be a tough call.

One thing is fairly certain, whether during this session or down the road a few years, this or a similar
anti-smoking measure is sure to pass. We can only wonder what else the government will soon
choose to regulate.