FACEOFF: Should the government require restaurants to ban all smoking?

By Kent Moreno:

Allow me to cut to the chase.  I believe that all restaurants should be smoke free.  I also believe that all bars should be smoke free. When it comes to issues of personal choice, within limits, as long as the person is hurting no one but themselves, I have a very strong libertarian streak.   In spite of the overwhelming evidence that smoking tobacco causes cancer and a host of other illnesses, if individuals wish to smoke, that’s their choice and I respect that. When the actions of smokers put at risk the health of nonsmokers, smoking ceases to be solely an issue of personal choice.  In the same manner that smokers should have the right to smoke, so too should nonsmokers have to right to be free from tobacco smoke and its myriad risks. It is under these types of circumstances that I believe in “active government.”  It is the responsibility of government to take meaningful action to protect nonsmokers from the health risks caused by second hand smoke.  Currently, 37 states in the US have smoking bans.  West Virginia is one of the few that does not.

The Surgeon General has determined that there is no level of second hand smoke that is safe.  The most current data indicates that 35,000 nonsmokers die every year from complications due to second hand smoke.  Three thousand of those nonsmokers will die from lung cancer and more than 22,000 will die from heart disease. Especially at risk are young children.  It is estimated that second hand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 – 300,000 lower respiratory infections in infants and children under18 months of age.  These respiratory infections result in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.  Second hand smoke causes 430 incidents of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) every year. Second hand smoke is in no way benign and even if it were, it stinks.  For nonsmokers, nothing can spoil a meal like the acrid smell of tobacco smoke.  Especially during mealtimes, the smell of tobacco smoke in a confined space can makes one’s eyes water and cause headaches and nausea instantly spoiling a meal.  As someone with asthma, there have been more than a few times when tobacco smoke has triggered an asthma attack while I was eating in a restaurant. After you leave the bar or restaurant the smell of tobacco smoke stays in your clothes.  If you’re a nonsmoker, the smell can be quite sickening or otherwise offensive.  Very few things will make you want to change your clothes as quickly as when they smell of tobacco smoke. I’m not unsympathetic to smokers who might like to light up during the meal or coffee but other less restrictive options have been tried.  Certainly nonsmoking sections have not worked.  I can’t tell you how many times Mollie and I have gone out to eat, sat in the restaurant’s nonsmoking section only to find the strong smell of tobacco smoke permeating the air.  The same holds true for air purifiers.
 
While air purifiers might help remove some of the smoke, the environment is far from smoke free. One argument against making restaurants and bars smoke free has been the fear that such a ban would cause restaurants and bars to lose money.  Currently there are no studies that support such an assertion.  When Maryland went smoke free a few years ago, they discovered something interesting.  Not only did becoming smoke free not hurt business, it actually helped it.  It turns out that nonsmokers had been staying away from restaurants and bars because of the tobacco smoke.  When the ban took effect nonsmokers started going out to bars and restaurants more often and the businesses reaped the benefits. Life is not fair. You make your choices and live with the consequences.  As someone who made the choice to become a vegetarian more than 20 years ago, I accept the consequences both positive and negative, of that decision.  With regard to restaurants, often it can be very difficult to find something satisfying to eat which can be pretty frustrating not to mention inconvenient.  Until someone invents a benign, pleasant smelling tobacco, we are going to have to rely on a smoking ban in restaurants (and hopefully bars) to protect nonsmokers and especially children from the health risks associated with second hand smoke.  This may mean some inconvenience for smokers but that’s life.

By Stephen Smoot:

I do not smoke cigarettes.  I do not like cigarettes.  I do not want my children to smoke cigarettes.  I do not know of anyone that does smoke cigarettes that has not expressed the desire to quit.  I know many who have tried and failed to quit smoking.  Smoking is a poor habit to pick up and an almost impossible one to break.  I would never suggest that anyone ever pick up smoking.  The habit is responsible for taking a lot of people from this earth before their time.  That all being said . . . It should concern us all when a non elected government body makes sweeping rules for businesses and individuals.  Health Departments across West Virginia and the United States have, one by one, voted to establish outright smoking bans on restaurants and other businesses, forcing those that choose to keep the habit to flee out of doors.  Debates on the health risks of second-hand smoke continue to rage, but that is not the biggest question here. Why is it that unelected boards, such as those involved with health, obtained so much power?  Consider this for a second.  In the year 2000, when these bans started growing in popularity, between 25 and 30% of West Virginians smoked, according to government data.   Some folks would say “That is the problem, we need government action!”  They go to the Legislatures only to find that elected officials won’t budge.  Too many smokers, too many businesses will be upset.  The politician’s mental cost-benefit analysis says that more voters will complain about the move than not and most people are neutral anyway.  Activists and reformers hate the plodding nature of democracy because voters are rarely truly roused to action on such issues.    The power of health and other planning boards represents a frightening trend in our time.  At what point did voters decide to give our representatives’ authority away to these people with no accountability before the public?  I doubt that the issue was ever placed before us for consideration. The plodding nature of democracy was what our forefathers wanted.  And what of that 25-30% of the population that smokes?

Why is it that they have no one speaking for them?

On a practical level, the previous condition that existed in most areas worked very well.  Businesses created smoking lounges while restaurants created walled off smoking areas.  Although I disagree with non-elected boards having any sweeping authority, this was an appropriate compromise that balanced the rights of non smokers with smokers.  It respected the right of individual choice, if not that of the freedom of business to make their own decisions.  Smoking bans represent nothing but social engineering, trying to force individuals to make choices for their own good.  At the end of the day, smoking is a choice.  Is it the rightchoice?  Most of us would say no when thinking of ourselves.  But which of us has the right to make that choice for another adult?

Of course the bigger issue is the power these boards have amassed.  Health boards and other planning boards must have some sort of restraint placed upon their authority.  The best scenario would be if they were elected officials, just like county boards of education (although I was recently told by a former member of Taylor County’s board that such bodies only have control over 5% of school policy.)  However even if just over half of the group consisted of elected officials who would have to answer to the voters, that would be an improvement. So if we do not have appointed boards to regulate smoking within businesses, how would non smokers be protected from the pollutants emitted by cigarettes?  How about the free market?  In 2000, 70% of the people in West Virginia did not smoke.  That number rises over time, as has the number of people who definitely hate to sit in the presence of smoke.  Why not let each restaurant decide whether or not to have smoking sections or forbid it altogether.  The Candlewyck Inn found that their business increased after the health board activated the ban.  That’s a wonderful development.  Each business should have the ability to gauge their customers and make their own decisions.  The market will decide whether or not smoking sections are viable.  Eliminating smoking lounges from other businesses made absolutely no sense.  What is wrong with having five people huddled in a small room breathing smoke at each other during their break time if no one else is affected?  No reason exists to prohibit that except for the desire of government officials to make it too inconvenient for individuals to continue their habit.

The precedent set by granting power to non elected boards is frightening, especially since they have ventured from protecting the public into social engineering.  That does not mean that all their authority ought to be removed.  We do need to have basic standards for cleanliness set and enforced.  However, their authority should be much more strictly delineated or at least half of their members ought to be elected officials of some stripe. Citizens of a free society must question the source of this authority and demand ways to force them to be accountable.  Otherwise, what incentive do they have to consider the public?  Where does their authority stop?