For example, once upon a time, consensual homosexual acts between adults or the use of birth control were both criminal activities, punishable by imprisonment or fines. Now these acts are not considered criminal violations, but personal behavior beyond the reach of the law. Smoking was once considered a normal social activity, especially when society was less aware of the health risks posed by smoking. Thus, there is a psychological tendency to generalize all legal constraints regarding personal behavior as trivial at best or unfair at worst. Even though society is aware of the damage done to everybody's health by second-hand smoke, everyone must still live in a world where smoking is legal. A nonsmoker may be married to a smoker, or have an older family member who smokes. Such personal scenarios further normalize the behavior. Hence, even when someone is witnessing a crime like smoking in a non-smoking area, because they tolerate it on a personal level amongst their friends and loved ones, they may not report the crime. Someone who allows his or her child to sit on the lap of a beloved grandfather who is a smoker is unlikely to report the sight of someone smoking in his or her favorite restaurant.

Just like any other crime, smoking related deaths caused by second hand smoke are real. According to the American Heart Association, environmental tobacco smoke "increases the risk of coronary events by about 30% and results in approximately 35,000 deaths from coronary heart disease among nonsmokers every year." (Cass, 2003) But the deaths from personal habit related crimes do not occur in a flash, rather exposure to the toxins builds up over time. The perception that smoking is a victimless crime unworthy of community surveillance is further related to the fact that the victims of the crime are not always immediately aware that the fumes may have a long-term impact upon their health. Also, the fact that the fumes are being disseminated, perhaps by the behavior of friends or loved ones makes people even less likely to report the crime. In the case...

("New York State Smoking Ban Signed into Law." 2003, CNN.com)
Contrary to the view that smoking is merely a harmless personal habit with substantial public support, there is substantial evidence that the majority of the non-smoking public wish to breath clean air when they are going out to eat. For example, a survey conducted by the American Heart Association "of 29,361 diners, conducted from May through mid-July, found that 96% are eating out the same amount or more often as a result of New York City's smoke-free restaurant law. Specifically, 23% said they were eating out more often because of the law. Seventy-three percent said they were eating out the same. Only 4% said they were eating out less often." (Cass, 2003) But enjoying a smoke-free environment more than a smoke-filled room does not necessarily translate into the courage to make a social statement and complain about a smoking patron to the manager, owner, or board of health.

Environmental smoke costs society. It costs society when the health of non-smoking workers is negatively influenced, and these persons might need later treatment for complications related to working for hours in a smoke-filled environment. It may cause an asthma attack in a patron who wished to dine in a smoke-free place. But although laws against restaurant smoking may be good for society, government health departments and legal authorities, rather than the community will have to be such laws' primary enforcers.

Works Cited

New York State Smoking Ban Signed into Law." 27 Mar 2003. CNN.com.

Nov 2006] http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/27/smoking.ban.ap/

Wheeler, Cass. (21 Oct 2003). "New York Restaurant Survey Supports Smoking Ban."

American Heart Association. [8 Nov 2006] http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3016321