The Anti-Smoking Movement
More than a decade ago, California ‘s anti-smoking laws went into effect. The result was that you could no longer smoke in most public places. Since then, California ‘s laws have become even tougher. Under the initial law, smoking was prohibited within 5 feet of the entrance to a public building. Under the state’s new 2004 law, smoking is prohibited within 20 feet of the front of the building unless the smoker is walking. However, by the time the state of California passed the law, many cities and counties in the state had already passed laws more restrictive than the state law. The current 2004 law also allows other jurisdictions and institutions in the state the ability to make the anti-smoking laws more restrictive.
In New York City , you can’t smoke in any restaurant or bar. The primary focus of this law, the California and laws in other cities such as Boston , is to protect not only patrons, but employees from second hand smoke. When these laws began to first be proposed and brought before the legislatures and various other governmental bodies, the cries and protest from restaurant and bar owners were that if smokers were prohibited from smoking, then their business would suffer. Patrons would stay away, owners would lose profits, the establishments would close and the economy would suffer. Funny thing is, this hasn’t happened.
Sure restaurants all over the country, including those in states and cities with anti-smoking laws, have opened and closed since the time smoking was banned in these cities, but it doesn’t appear there is any relation to smoking regulations. In New York City and Boston restaurants have remained opened and profitable even without out patrons having the ability to smoke. The argument has been that in cities where smoking was banned in restaurants or bars, the patrons would go to an adjoining city where they could smoke. Some patrons in New York City, Boston and other cities where smoking is banned in restaurants and bars have certainly ventured to other nearby cities where they can drink and smoke, but the number of people doing this has not been significant enough to cause any appreciable decline in business or to have had any chilling effect on the opening of new businesses.
Other cities have attempted to ban smoking, but the efforts have failed. The city of Charleston, South Carolina has been attempting to regulate smoking for nearly a decade, but each time the measure comes before the city council, it is sent to a committee and following the return of a report to council from committee, the measure dies. Other cities have, like Charleston, tried to regulate smoking bans or regulations, but pressure from various food and beverage associations and other groups have largely kept the measures from passing. The arguments that are being used are the same ones that have been used in New York City, Boston and virtually every other municipality or county that has regulated smoking. That argument – if smoking is banned, patrons will stop coming to my business and I will lose money – makes a big impact on other business owners and on politicians. Other business owners become worried that they may lose money and politicians are petrified that they will lose votes and, ultimately, their office. The end result is that in cities where this argument is used with success is that nothing comes from the efforts to regulate smoking.
However, the arguments for anti-smoking laws, smoking bans or smoking regulation in general may be too little too late. Presently, you would have to begin a search that focused on rocks and hope to find someone who had been living under a big one for a long time to find anyone that believes smoking isn’t harmful. In fact, despite the resistance to regulate smoking in bars and restaurants, smoking is outright banned in many other public places.
When I was growing up, there was a smoking area at my high school. Seniors and juniors (for those of you keeping score, this group includes 17-18 year olds) could smoke and 16 year olds, regardless of their grade in school could smoke if they had permission from a parent. It always surprised me how many parents had no problem with their child smoking. However, I challenge anyone to find a public school in the where students, or anyone for that matter, can legally smoke. The same is true for many office buildings, private schools, hospitals, hotels, airports, colleges, government buildings and sports complexes. Essentially, at this point, some of the last holdouts where smoking is still allowed are small businesses and most restaurants and bars.
So, reading this, you as the reader will likely have already formed the opinion that I am anti-smoking. The reality is that I am not against smoking. Even though governmental bodies all over the world have banned or heavily regulated smoking, it still remains a legal activity. I’m not sure that I could ever be against an otherwise legal activity. I may chose not to engage in the activity, but that is just my choice. If someone else wants to smoke or engage in any other legal activity, have fun. In fact, I’ll be the biggest supporter of your ability and right to do so.
At the end of the day, that is really what this all comes down to. Choice. So perhaps this is the proper avenue to take when considering a ban or the regulation of smoking. When people look at this issue, they generally see two options. Allow smoking or completely ban it. If you allow it, anti-smoking advocates will be upset. If smoking is banned, then business owners will take issue at legislation that cost them money. Politicians will worry on either side of this issue that they have lost or alienated a voting block. All of these are possible outcomes when such definite measures are taken.
So again, it comes back to choice. And with the concept of choice comes another possibility for regulating smoking where the consumer/general public is informed and allowed to make a choice. The business owners are able to make a choice. Even the politicians are able to have choices in the matter. Perhaps the avenue for addressing the issue of regulating smoking lies in combining all of this choice into a clear and concise approach.
First, the approach would be an opt-in approach where the individual business owner, be it restaurants, bars or other business, decided the approach they wanted to take to self regulate smoking. They could allow smoking anywhere and anytime in their establishment, they could limit smoking by times of the day, they could have separate areas in their restaurants designated smoking or non-smoking, they could have areas of separate designation with filtration systems, or, the business owner could completely ban smoking. Depending on the exact approach the business owner took, there would be some signage displayed prominently on the front of the building or establishment. This would allow the general public to be informed as to the approach the business took to smoking. This allows the individual to make a choice before they enter the business. If they want to smoke and the business doesn’t allow it, they can go on. If they want a non-smoking establishment and they are looking at a full smoking business, they can move on, or come in educated. So this begs the question as to how the anti-smoking supporters would like this approach as it seems that everyone would just put up a sign saying their business is full smoking. Not necessarily as the goal would be to encourage the business owners to initiate a ban themselves on their own businesses.
Business owners say that smoking bans will cost them money. However, using this approach, by voluntarily banning or regulating smoking, business owners can actually save money. Businesses are taxed, some, like bars and restaurants that serve alcohol and stay open late especially so. The approach to encourage a self ban or regulation is to provide tax break incentives where business owners who self regulate are given tax breaks for regulating their businesses. If the owner voluntarily bans smoking in their business, then they would receive a tax incentive for doing so.
This approach makes sense as it puts the choice in the hand of the business owner and allows them control over their own property. If they don’t mind higher taxes, then allow smoking in their business. The politicians provide the incentive and are doing something about smoking. While this plan will not appease everyone, it moves the ball forward and could work to break the deadlock in cities and states where the anti-smoking efforts have been left to counties and cities.
This all having been said, this approach works best with local governmental authorities. If an entire state, like California, or the country as a whole, like did, was to ban smoking, it is unlikely that any incentives will be offered or that this approach would work. After all, if smoking was regulated equally across the state, then the argument that patrons would visit another city to drink, eat and smoke would be greatly diminished.
The point is that the anti-smoking movement is rolling and will continue to move forward. If people want to maintain their right to choice and to be able to determine the path of their own businesses, then they should consider approaching their local council members and suggesting an approach like this. If not, the only place someone may be able to take part in the otherwise legal activity of smoking is in the privacy of their own home.
