The Solution To The Smoking Dilemma

Kentucky's first great statesman was known for being a great compromiser. Henry Clay's Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were two of his most notable legislative feats, balancing the interests of slaveholding states and abolitionist states decades before the eruption of the Civil War. Today, many parts of Kentucky need new compromisers to answer a new call for legislative moderation.

Compared to the freedom of men, most of the issues we face today are trivial. Nonetheless, freedom is still at stake.

Today, many citizens and business owners want to be able to legally smoke tobacco products within certain businesses such as restaurants and bars. Many other concerned citizens and business owners want to restrict their freedoms to do so because the smoke may unintentionally harm other people inside those same businesses. Many feel that their financial livelihood is on the line. Many feel that more basic freedoms are being challenged. The latter argue that these are scenarios where one's freedoms ends where another's nose begins - that a person's right to voluntarily smoke is overruled by another's right to a more healthy lifestyle.

These are both legitimate points. That is why compromise is necessary.

The solution to this question of liberties does not have to lie in legislative bodies. However, public servants often face intense pressure to "do something." If any legislative body in Kentucky chooses to "do something," the solution it chooses should respect both of the legitimate arguments above, with no unfair exemptions for anyone.

The only solution available to sensible legislators is one which may not make everyone happy. The ramifications of pragmatism are not always enjoyable, but often rewarding and certainly endurable. Most importantly, in a situation such as this, only a pragmatic answer is respectable.

Legislative bodies in Kentucky should act to create and enforce local smoke zoning ordinances by which each business must choose whether or not smoking will be allowed within its walls and to clearly post the smoking status of the business in a visible place near entrances. At least 3 smoke zoning classifications need to be established:

1 - No smoking.
2 - Smoking during certain times and places.
3 - Smoking.

The effects of these ordinances would not delight everyone, but pragmatic answers rarely do. However, this answer is the only answer that respects the legitimate arguments of the two opposing forces in this debate. People will be allowed to smoke inside some businesses. Business owners will be allowed to choose whether or not to allow smoking. People who choose healthier lifestyles can do so.

The interests of the legislators themselves should not be overlooked. They do face pressure to do something. This is something they can do that respects all parties. Pressure on them would be alleviated, and they would be free to conduct other business. They can even take credit for "doing something."

The function of government itself, also, should not be overlooked. If forced to choose one side or the other, legislative bodies will likely revisit the topic more often that what is prudent, anger more people than necessary, and spend too much time and money debating the issue.

This solution is one which can be enacted quickly, if only our legislators would rise to the occasion in the spirit of our first great statesman, the great compromiser Henry Clay.