On the ballot in Arizona this fall are the highly publicized Proposition 201, or Smoke-Free Arizona, and Proposition 206, the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act.
The propositions are running against each other; only the one with the most votes will pass. Both are relatively the same, but with a few key differences.
In theory, both seem to be good ideas, but Proposition 201 ultimately protects the voter from secondhand smoke.
Some restaurants with bars may lose some business because of the people who want to have a smoke with their food. But if a smoking ban will save lives, what is more important?
According to the wording of the propositions, both would still allow smoking in "retail tobacco stores that are physically separated and independently ventilated," in "veterans and fraternal clubs when they are not open to the public," in "hotel rooms designated as smoking rooms," and in "outdoor patios."
But Proposition 206 would also allow smoking in "bars, including parts of restaurants, hotels and other establishments that sell alcoholic beverages and are physically separated with a separate ventilation system."
This would essentially ban smoking in all popular restaurant/bars where families with children often eat, since the bar is most often not physically separate from the eating area.
Another difference is that Proposition 201 would raise the state tobacco tax on cigarettes an extra 2 cents a pack. Revenues would be deposited in the Smoke-Free Arizona Fund (which would be run through the Department of Health Services). The extra money would pay for the costs of efficiently running the new laws and enforcing them, if instated.
Higher taxes, which equate to higher prices, might possibly deter people from buying cigarettes, which is probably an intended consequence. Also, it's a good place to raise the money.
One last difference comes from the organizations supporting the legislation. The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association support Proposition 201.
On the other hand, Proposition 206 is being funded by the large tobacco company RJ Reynolds, and the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association.
If you want to smoke, go ahead and smoke. I have nothing against people who smoke. But smoke on your own time, in designated areas. Don't hurt the lungs of people who don't make the choice to smoke, or are too young to be able to make that choice.
According to a report released this summer from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, secondhand smoke, even in small doses, can increase the risk of heart disease and lung cancer for nonsmokers by up to 30 percent.
Secondhand smoke has even been known to cause lung cancer, other types of cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers, and because of that the Environmental Protection Agency has classified tobacco smoke as a "group A" carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans.
And what about those who don't have a choice about being in a nonsmoking environment? In places without bans on smoking, food-service workers are more likely than the general population to develop problems related to smoking, largely because many of them are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job.
It has also been shown that children can have aggravated asthma symptoms and other respiratory problems due to secondhand smoke, and tobacco smoke has also been shown to put babies at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome.
There are over 4,000 chemicals found in the smoke of tobacco products, several of which are cancer-causing agents.
Formaldehyde, found in some cigarettes, is also used to preserve human cadavers. There's also ammonia, which is found in many household cleaners, and acetone, which is the main ingredient in nail-polish remover.
Let's not forget hydrogen cyanide, nickel, carbon monoxide and many other scary things.
I just hope that Arizona voters take everything into consideration, do their research, read the text of both the propositions, realize the ramifications, and be familiar with how people could either benefit or suffer when or if these provisions become law.
The ban on smoking in bars may go too far. It's up to voters. I'd like to think, however, that my lungs are private property, and if your smoke comes into them, that should be breaking a law.
I dream of the day when I can go into a restaurant, enjoy my meal without having cigarette smoke blow over from the bar to my nonsmoking table, and walk out without smelling like a big cigarette.
Megan Wadding is a junior studying film. She can be reached at Megan.Wadding@asu.edu.
