Jan. 2 North Carolina, the largest tobacco-producing state in the country, adopted a policy to prohibit smoking in public restaurants, bars and smoking establishments where smoke would be allowed to migrate to a prohibited area.

The law is a complaint-driven system whereby individual complaints prompt state officials to investigate and issue due punishments.

Police officers are to respond to complaints made against individuals who smoke and can issue fines up to $50. The local health department is responsible for responding to complaints made against public establishments refusing to enforce the ban and may issue fines to the owner of up to $200 for each violation.

A persisting argument against anti-smoking policies is the government infringing on individual and property rights.

Leigh Daniels, a junior in arts applications, said it is not the place of the government to make these decisions.

“It’s up to the person [to smoke],” she said. “The government has no say as to what choices you make as an individual.”

Daniels said while restaurants should provide an environment suitable for the entire family, bars cater to an older demographic which should be responsible enough to make such decisions on their own.

“[The law] is understandable for restaurants but smoking should still be available in bars. It’s not right for the government to impose these things,” Daniels said.

For Julian Dalton, a freshman in engineering, however, the legislation brings a welcome change.

“It’s a good idea because despite having smoking sections, [restaurants or bars] are still one big place,” Dalton said. “Everyone breathes the same air.”

Dalton said he was happy to be able to breathe freely and not come home smelling like smoke when going out.

“It is constitutional. It kind of goes against people’s freedom to do whatever they want, but before it wasn’t fair for people who didn’t smoke.”

The bill detailing the smoking ban said the General Assembly had found secondhand smoke to be a cause cancer, heart disease and asthma attacks, citing a 2006 report by the United States Surgeon General “that the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

According to the document, it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the health of individuals in public places.

Cory Slep, a freshman in nuclear engineering, said there is no real evidence of damage caused by secondhand smoke and the Surgeon General report was composed of cherry-picked cases to justify the piece of legislation.

“The government is infringing on people’s personal liberties,” Slep said. “It’s not the position of the government to tell people what they can or can’t do.”

Corey Baldwin, a freshman in mechanical engineering, questioned the morality of the government’s decision.

“I’m sure [the ban] is legal because it made it this far, but it’s probably not very ethical,” he said. “The government is overstepping its bounds into the business world.”

Baldwin said businesses where smoking was commonplace could be hurt by the new policy.

“The government should have left it to the restaurants to decide how they want to run their establishment.  If smoking is good for business then it should have been fine.”

Bert McMillan, a bartender at Players Retreat, said the legislation seems constitutional.

“It makes sense in a public place,” he said. “Non-smokers have a right to expect a smoke-free environment.”

“We are experiencing [decline] and expecting further decline, but it should get better in a month or two,” McMillan said.

According to McMillan, bars in other states experienced an initial decline but recovered for two reasons: smokers eventually got tired of staying at home and non-smokers became more attracted to bars due to the new policy.

“Most states have seen an overall increase after a certain amount of time,” McMillan said. “It’s better in the long run.”