As my previous statement might imply, I am not a smoker.

It’s not so much out of choice, but of necessity: My lungs can’t handle the firsthand smoke. When I first attempted smoking around 15 or 16, the Marlboros I had almost killed me. Eventually, I worked my way to some kind of slim ultra light, but the aesthetic appeal of smoking a cigarette thinner than a pencil and longer than my forearm quickly killed my habit.

I still was hooked on cigarettes — and later, cigars — because it looked cool and gave my hands something to do. I never lit up, but to this day I might borrow a cigarette from a friend while I am at the bar — feeds my habit I suppose. Still, like I said, I’m not a smoker.

Even as a non-smoker and asthmatic, I’ve never really had a problem with secondhand smoke. It cultivates a certain kind of atmosphere. Smoke-filled rooms have a rich tradition of setting the scenes in jazz bars, dive bars and any place where powerful people swirl brandy in giant snifters while chewing on Cuban cigars. It’s a little piece of history that is slowly going the way of the Dodo.

The only thing that bothers me about it is that it forces privately owned businesses to change their practices based on legislation. Owners or patrons should decide if they want establishments to allow individuals to smoke inside. If people want to patronize businesses that allow smoking, more power to them.

If, however, residents want their places to be smoke-free, then businesses will have to adjust. I felt much the same way about banning trans fat: Let the people eating the food decide. Educate, persuade and let us exercise some personal responsibility.

That is my rosy idealistic outlook. In reality, banning smoking in public places is akin to making it illegal to drink and drive. It is not illegal to drink or to drive, but combining the two increases the risk to other members of society. Likewise, it is not illegal to smoke or to be in a public space. The combination of the two — based on available data — is harmful to the health of others.

In essence, secondhand smoke is a violation of personal rights. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website: “Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.” The privilege of smoking, it appears, does not outweigh freedom from harm.

The law also differentiates between businesses. It exempts “cigar bars, retail tobacco stores, private home offices, company vehicles including commercial trucks and Detroit’s three casinos’ gambling floors.”

At worst, the ban is an inconvenience, and I think it would be surprising if any business failed because smoking was no longer allowed. The only place a public smoking ban would have a significant effect is in a smoke shop. The law clearly states stores of that nature are exempt. A bar that closes because of the smoking ban is a bad bar.

I can’t speak for everyone, but when I go to a bar, I go to drink. Likewise, when I go to a restaurant, I go to eat. Banning smoking isn’t going to make most people drink or eat less. It might be the case that some people choose to stay home because they want to have a puff with their drink or burger, but I think that number is insignificant.

I feel for smokers. It can’t feel good to have to interrupt a meal or conversation to have a smoke.

At the same time, there is an aspect to having a habit — legally sanctioned or otherwise — that means an interruption of normal activities. That’s life.

I hope the ban will lead more people to forego smoking when they are in social situations. Cutting back a little on a habit that kills hundreds of thousands each year in the U.S. is a good call whether it is legislated or not.

David Barker is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at barkerd@msu.edu.