City building smoking ban harms no one's rights

More than a sigh of relief, Monday’s news that the Sedalia City Council voted to prohibit tobacco use inside all city facilities and vehicles should elicit a chorus of “it’s about time.”

The council’s actions are proper and appropriate on many levels. While some smokers will wail about their personal freedoms being taken away, that is simply a hollow and baseless argument. People who want to smoke may continue to do so — they just cannot smoke inside municipal buildings and vehicles. Smokers may be slightly inconvenienced by the move, but there is a vast difference between inconvenience and intolerance. If there is a city employee who believes the smoking ban is problematic, they are free to seek employment at an establishment that allows smoking; otherwise, they can do what workers at businesses across the city do — go outside to light up.

As reported by The Democrat’s Matthew Steingraber, both Mayor Elaine Horn and Interim City Administrator Brian Koral emphasized the smoking ban’s purpose is to promote healthier lifestyles for city employees. The negative health effects of smoking are well-documented, but the personal choice to smoke affects not only the smoker but also those around them. Not only is the smell of secondhand smoke offensive to many, it also contains arsenic, benzene, ammonia, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and other chemicals that affect the lungs and heart of those who involuntarily breathe it in.

According to the Mayo Clinic (mayoclinic.org): “The dangerous particles in secondhand smoke can linger in the air for hours. Breathing them even for a short time — as little as 20 or 30 minutes — can harm you in a variety of ways. And breathing in secondhand smoke over years can be all the more dangerous.” So prohibiting smoking inside municipal facilities protects the public who frequent those buildings, as well as the city employees who work there.

Those complaining about the Sedalia City Council’s actions should take note of two bills that have been submitted this session in the Missouri legislature. Both House Bill 1766 and Senate Bill 904 aim to repeal the state’s Indoor Clean Air Act and enact tougher restrictions on smoking in public places. In a Feb. 12 editorial about these bills, the Southeast Missourian noted “many businesses say any decision about smoking limits should be up to business owners, not the state or federal government. These advocates of smoking privileges say their customers can decide whether or not to patronize them without government sanctions.”

While we agree with that contention as it concerns private property, we also endorse the Sedalia City Council’s decision to prohibit smoking in city-owned facilities and vehicles. Residents who must do business with the city do not have the choice of going elsewhere, while patrons can choose whether to frequent a business based on its smoking policy.