A lot of talk in the comments seems now to be focused on the people who are, because of some unique circumstance or another, "forced" to take a job in a bar or restaurant. While "force" is not necessarily the word I’d choose, this is the only even vaguely compelling argument I’ve heard from smoking ban advocates so far: a lot of people, specifically recent immigrants and students, have few options as to where they can work.

Unfortunately though, the argument that these people are victims of their circumstances isn’t based in reality.

As one of the commenter’s circumstances reveals (and my own circumstance as well), people who take transitional or temporary jobs in the service industry simply aren’t exposed to ETS long enough or in high enough concentrations for it to affect their long-term health: they finish their schooling and move on or they gain the necessary job experience to find other work.

Now, according to the testimony of a gentelman from the American Cancer Society, it takes decades for ACTIVE smokers to develop chronic or fatal conditions from smoking. Anyone who spends enough time in the service industry to be subject to the risks of secondhand smoke has to be there for at least that long: decades. Clearly anyone who is there for decades is there by choice, not because their circumstances require it. If we allow people to choose risky life-long careers in other fields, certainly career service industry professionals should be given the same choice.

Being a career waiter or bartender isn’t a circumstance someone is forced into, anymore than being a career lion tamer or hypertension prone executive is.

Is it true that the options are slim for some people? Yes. Is it true that the best option for a lot of people is a temporary job in a bar or restaurant? Yes. But are those people at any real risk from ETS from a stint in the service industry for a few years? Absolutely not.

-Brooke Oberwetter