The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates secondhand smoke to be responsible for 35,000 heart disease deaths per year, a number likely to rise as data is re-evaluated.

Big Tobacco has been dealt a severe blow by the CDC, which now recommends the avoidance of indoor smoking for those at risk of heart disease.

In making this recommendation, the CDC cites a 2002 study conducted in Helena, Mont. The number of heart attacks dropped substantially during the city’s 6-month smoking ban. When the ban was struck down in court, heart attacks ascended to pre-ban levels.

These statistics were compared to the previous five years, and researchers found cardiac arrests to have dropped by 40 percent in Helena, while there was no such drop in surrounding communities.

All of this could be coincidence, I admit; it’s one study. However, for there to be such a dramatic drop, it’s reasonable to assume the smoking ban helped. In the coming years, similar studies will finish in California, New York City and Delaware.

Recent smoking bans have received national and international attention.

On March 29, Ireland passed a measure making smoking at workplaces illegal. Violators can receive a fine up to $4,000.

A day after coming into effect, pub employees and patrons declared the smoking ban a success. Many in Ireland believe they are setting a trend that will spread throughout Europe.

Coming back to America, more specifically to the burley tobacco belt, the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a smoking ban in Frankfort. The case received much attention due to the high percentage of smokers in the state. Approximately one-third of the state’s adult population smokes.

In New York City, despite criticism from opponents of a similar ban, the number of people employed in bars and restaurants has reached a decade high. Liquor licenses are up and businesses aren’t going under.

Georgia lawmakers are being met with more resistance by the Georgia Libertarian Party. The party believes that the recently passed anti-smoking bill “infringes on the rights of private business owners to make decisions about how they want to use their property.”

They also believe the ban “gives the government the authority … to regulate the activities of those customers that choose to frequent these businesses.”

Well, they’re absolutely right. However, the rights of business owners to make decisions about how to use their property only goes as far as the rights of the patrons of their business.

What if, instead of allowing smoking to hurt other people, a bar owner allowed people to assault others in the bar?

Certainly, this could not fall into the category of business owners’ rights over their property.

It’s hard to make the connection between assault and secondhand smoke because the effects of smoke are not immediately seen. Nonetheless, it infringes on non-smokers’ rights to good health as does assault.

The Libertarian Party proposes the government should simply “allow public opinion and the free market to regulate situations like this.” While this idea would work well for my assault situation, the delayed effects of environmental tobacco smoke will make such a scenario unlikely to protect citizens. I know the potential risks of environmental tobacco smoke, yet I frequent hazy bars on a regular basis.

In Ireland, pub owners have been creative in suiting the needs of smoking pub-goers. One owner has a heated double-decker smoking bus that sits outside his business. Others have constructed patios. Making changes like these can help accommodate the smoking and non-smoking populations.

In California, cities have started to ban smoking on beaches. This may be going a little far. It’s reasonable to say environmental tobacco smoke affects non-smokers in enclosed spaces, but I doubt the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke in an open-air environment are nearly as serious.

It’s hard to imagine a world where smoking moves from the public sector to the private one.

The innumerable benefits of such a shift cannot be denied.

Nonsmokers will not have to inhale smoke detrimental to their health.

Employees of businesses will be able to breathe clean air.

Smokers looking to quit will have an easier time doing so. It’s just a matter of time before these benefits are realized — give it 10 years.