file photo

There are many pieces of advice to give incoming freshmen.

They soon will learn that a bottle of Febreze is just as important as extra-long bedsheets.

With the help of fabric refresher, students can eliminate the stale smoke odor from a pair of jeans and then wear them for more than one night at a house party or bar without washing them.

While living back home this summer near the Twin Cities, I went out a few nights to bars in Hennepin County, which enforced a smoking ban last spring.

When I went home each night, I did not smell of smoke. The next day, my pillowcase didn’t smell like smoke from my hair. I could have gone without showering.

I might have even been able to wear my clothes another day without doing laundry or dousing them in Febreze.

And for those reasons, I support smoking bans like the ones placed in larger populated areas such as Hennepin County and Madison, which passed an ordinance banning smoking last July.

It’s hard for me to justify my support solely because, as a non-smoker, I love leaving a bar unaccompanied by smoke stench.

I realize there are health benefits as well for non-smokers like me. But I’m not thinking long-term right now.

Besides, I’m in a bar to exceed the five-drink binge limit with my friends, and I’ll probably get cheese curds at bar time, so truly I’m the last person who should be pointing a finger about healthy behavior.

However, it’s wonderful for people who work in bars to lessen their chances of lung cancer and other long-term health problems from secondhand smoke.

But according to newspapers in the two states, bar owners have reported losing customers to nearby bars without smoking bans, as well as having to cut shifts. Employees in bars with bans are noticing a drop in their tips.

It has to be hard for employees to think of the advantages, such as long-term health, if right now they are struggling to cover rent or buy groceries, or if job loss is in the back of their minds.

I understand the points made by supporters and opponents of smoking bans.

But I think arguing health benefits is slightly hypocritical.

All summer, establishments with liquor licenses advertised their outdoor garden areas on Twin City radio stations. Some of the commercials blatantly stated, “come smoke in our new outdoor seating.”

Will Budweiser posters with tiny “Drink Responsibly” disclaimers hang near Phillip Morris sponsored smoking patios?

Fewer people are being affected by secondhand smoke in bars in Hennepin County and Madison, as well as many other metropolitan cities in the U.S.

But the bans brought on a whole new health issue, the advertising of smoking.

It seems the fight against tobacco has taken a step backward through legislation supposedly supporting it.

Advertising on the radio should not encourage patrons to “come smoke in our new outdoor seating,” but rather only mention its availability.

It’s great for bar owners and their employees outside of smoking ban areas who received an increase of business, but if patrons start going to bars further away, there is the chance of an increase of driving drunk.

The bans in Wisconsin and Minnesota should have been made statewide. This would have discouraged people from going out of their way to drink and possibly drive home intoxicated. And it might have prevented some of the economic losses.

I still feel like a hypocrite for enjoying the stench-free luxury of smoking bans, or for complaining about washing my smoky bar clothes while in Eau Claire.

Someone else’s vice of cigarette smoke may be a nuisance for me, but there’s no doubt in a crowded bar I’ve accidentally spilled on someone before.