Didn’t we anticipate this? Last January, Iowa State banned smoking within 25 feet of university buildings and gathering areas such as bus stops. When the campus community was faced with opposing sides of the issue – those who wanted no restriction versus those who wanted a complete ban on smoking, we resolved it with a compromise.

It seems like compromise gets exponentially harder as you grow older and get more people involved – even if the ratio of Group A versus Group B remains the same.

Here’s something else that happened last January: HF 35 was introduced to the Iowa Statehouse. This document would give “a city, county, or local board of health” more control over smoking regulations their respective areas. It gives them a blank check to provide more stringent rules than what are currently enforced in the Iowa Code when it comes to smoking.

Right now the rules in the Iowa Code are basically as follows: Those who own the property can designate smoking areas (except elevators) unless prohibited for general safety reasons such as fire hazard or hospital grounds. It states that no public place other than a bar can be designated “smoking” in its entirety, meaning all other public grounds have the right to a non-smoking and smoking section at discretion of the owner, as long as smoking sections are well ventilated.

This proposed legislation went to subcommittee in February of last year and got lost in the shuffle. Last week, Rep. Ro Foege, D-Mount Vernon, re-introduced it to the House again, and sent it back to subcommittee.

There are a few legal as well as social problems that are piggybacking with the bill. First of all, passing this bill means giving a local majority the right to ban smoking is all public places by getting rid of designated smoking areas in bars, private halls and workplaces.

Clearly, taking the rights of the owner away and giving them to the majority of the community seems like a legal precedent that would never happen. People have several options, provided to them by their rights, that can solve this issue without forfeiting our own integrity.

First, any person has the right to frequent a business at his or her own discretion. If you don’t want to party there, work or eat there, you don’t have to. People could also petition the owners of their favorite venues to employ a non-smoking policy, and the owner could see the pros and cons based on customer numbers. Lastly, anyone has the right to start their own business or own their own property and make their own regulations for that property. But the indignant attitude of some is giving permission for a mob mentality to rule over individual rights.

So why is it, when all these options are available to every person, and when legislation already provides regulations that designate a fair compromise, are people still not satisfied?

Part of it has to do with the frustration of non-smokers with smokers. Why wouldn’t you just stop anyway? It costs a lot, it’s detrimental to your health and social life – there are really no benefits. They can’t understand why everyone wouldn’t just want an excuse to quit anyway and we could all be just like them and then the regulations wouldn’t matter.

The fact of the matter is a rights issue – just not the one everyone is arguing about. Forget about the right to smoke or the right to breathe clean air. Passing legislation like this ironically degrades our very right to choose: the right that we give non-smokers to not come in this bar, or manage their own property rules, or to control the flow of consumption to one business or another and make a change.

By making it a possibility for the majority to vote on a banning of all designated smoking areas in certain venues, we are losing the right of businesses to compete, and for any smokers to control flow. If one bar voluntarily became non-smoking, smokers could boycott their services, making an impact on their profits and influencing supply and demand. If all we have are non-smoking venues, there is no possible way to boycott or choose. We couldn’t even build our own smoking establishment.

The solution to this issue is clear because we’ve already implemented it. Designated sections provide fair service and are regulated by the Department of Health – this was once our answer. The reoccurring stimulus to this debate is just a matter of indignant attitudes on both sides.

The government, at both federal and state levels, can’t bring itself to make any decisions that might be unfavorable even though there are already clear legal policies. They keep pushing it down to smaller and smaller levels until it eventually comes down to us and a primitive scrabble to be the majority, a concept that we fought damn hard to exclude from our governing process.

Lately, many decisions are coming to this point. Nobody can make a decision because nobody can stand up for themselves in the government. Let the states and communities decide everything! Why do we even have elections anymore? By refusing to use our rights given to us by the government, but also refusing to accept a government decision, we’re basically screwing ourselves.

– Luci Van Scoy is a junior in anthropology from Newton.