Banning smoking is good for public health.

• Position: Your Life

According to Marc Hiller, professor of health management and policy, University of New Hampshire, Durham, democratic governments always have recognized that there can and should be a limitation on people's and businesses' behavior when it affects other people--especially their health and safety. Drunken driving laws, health standards for restaurants, pollution restrictions for industry, and safety standards in manufacturing are all born from an understanding that freedom is not an absolute. One should not legally be able to act in a manner that harms others.

Proposals for and policies adopted to promote clean air do not deny the right of smokers to smoke, but smoking in occupational work settings, schools, colleges/universities, and other public places denies the ability of employees, students, and other customers of those places to breathe air that is free of known carcinogens, he argues. It is true that cigarettes are legal products, but so are alcohol and automobiles, and few argue with the wisdom of banning them from being used together in a way that is known to harm others.

As for the argument touted by some businesses that policies designed to promote clean indoor air will hurt their bottom lines, there is overwhelming scientific evidence based on research done in communities and states across the nation that shows that this is not the case. Many businesses actually report that they are doing better since clean air policies have been implemented. Long-term experience in other areas with smoking bans has shown that customers return to businesses that may experience temporary drops. This is most likely due to the fact that nonsmokers outnumber smokers three to one and report increased frequency in patronizing smoke-free stores and restaurants.

"But more importantly," Hiller argues, "I can think of no other industry in which it is acceptable to make the argument that the...