West Lafayette Smoking Ordinance

Our city council has been tossing around this legislation for a while now, since about November (old articles from the campus newspaper can be found here). It was barely voted down in late January, due mostly to 'ambiguities' in the wording and heavy complaint from local business. So, recently they've introduced a revised version (Linky). This is the pertinent article. The council met on Monday (Mar. 6) to discuss passing this legislation again and I attended the meeting to speak against the ordinance myself. I only got two/three minutes, so I tried to attack mostly their fundamental justifications for it (in the actual ordinance, everything after "WHEREAS"). This is what I'd prepared to say:

The reason the proposed smoking ban is being considered as a beneficial ordinance to the citizens of West Lafayette is: A.) smoking and second-hand smoke are health risks and B.) it is the responsibility of this city council to ensure an environment free of smoke-risk.

The second of those statements is false rendering the first irrelevant to legislation. If Mr. X desires a smoke-free environment because of the inherent risks, then it is in Mr. X's every right to abstain from entering into such environments. No one is forcing Mr. X to suffer a smoke-filled room; if he enters a bar or restaurant or club or 'place of employment' where smoking is allowed by the owner of the building, then he does so by choice. Yet, according to this legislation, Mr. X would have this council force another citizen to provide that environment. It is not the needs or desires of business that this legislation is compromising, but their rights, for the desires of others. And, contrary to popular opinion, it is not your obligation to protect my health and welfare, it is my own. If you pass this legislation in the name of public good, then please count me out of the public, because setting the precedent for violating property rights is not in any one's best interest.

Greg Ehresman owns Triple XXX, Mary Cook owns Harry's, and Derrick Raymer owns Where Else?. If they wish to allow their patrons to smoke on their property, it is not for anyone else to say otherwise. It is not the prerogative of any governmental body to dictate what citizens may freely choose to do on private property, whether they're smoker or non-smoker, business-owner or customer.

I've often heard the argument that if left to themselves businesses wouldn't offer non-smoking services. To that let me point out that businesses very seldom fail to capitalize on such consumer demands. And that, if it is found businesses can't make a profit from catering to non-smokers, it is a failure of the demand for such a service rather than of the business.

Update [Same Day]: Take a wild guess at who was quoted in the Exponent today! ^_^ Though, I'm a sophomore transfer student, not a freshman.