Effects of smoking bans in restaurants and bars

Ethics Argument - Smoking Bans

SMOKING BANS in RESTAURANTS and BARS

Five years ago, New York City became the first large American city to enact anti- smoking ordinances in restaurants and bars. Since then, anti-smoking legislation has spread to many other American and European cities alike. In 2006, a New York City civil court judge ruled that second-hand smoke between apartments violates the implied warranty of habitability of nonsmokers and several dozen residential buildings in the city have prohibited smoking anywhere inside their buildings, including inside private apartments. (O'Neill & Light 2008)

Backlash from smokers and business owners opposed to the ban have led to extreme measures, such as the production of "playbills" distributed to restaurant patrons with encouragement to show up in costume and attempt improvisational acting while dining. The idea was to exploit a loophole in the smoking ban that allows actors performing in theatrical productions to smoke in premises otherwise subject to Minnesota smoking bans (Aamot 2008). Similarly absurd circumstances have arisen in Europe, particularly in Amsterdam, where anti-smoking legislation pertains only to tobacco but not to marijuana. Consequently, smoking pure marijuana cigarettes will continue to be perfectly legal in bars after this July, but the scheduled restriction on tobacco smoke will prohibit smoking cigarettes or even marijuana cigarettes that contain tobacco (Nizza 2008).

The Argument for and Against Smoking Bans:

Proponents of anti-smoking legislation suggest that nonsmokers have a right not to be exposed involuntarily to second-hand tobacco smoke in public. According to them, tobacco smoke is harmful to their health and smokers have no right to smoke anywhere that nonsmokers might be exposed to their smoke. Certainly, government has a legitimate right to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens, but there are limits to that concept in a free society. To be sure, smoking tobacco has been linked to medical consequences to the smoker and evidence has been presented linking so-called "second- hand smoke" to health consequences in nonsmokers exposed to tobacco smoke. While that may justify smoking bans in public facilities such as hospitals and on public transportation, it is much harder to justify smoking bans where public participation is strictly voluntary rather than necessary.

Audiologists tell us that listening to loud noises is harmful to our hearing.

Individuals in a free society have the right to take the advice of medical experts or to ignore the same advice. Those who wish to avoid loud noises should not live near airports or attend rock concerts or NASCAR races; similarly, those who wish to avoid cigarette smoke should simply avoid public places where exposure to second-hand smoke is a concern. Unlike the case with hospitals, government offices, and public transportation, patronizing any particular bar or restaurant is strictly a voluntary choice and not a necessity. Therefore, smoking bans in bars and restaurants unfairly caters to nonsmokers at the expense of smokers and of any business owners who prefer to sacrifice the revenue generated by nonsmokers than that generated by smokers. It is the equivalent of banning air traffic to protect the hearing of people who choose to live next to airports.

Modern urban society is associated with many risks and compromises not required of those who choose to live in more suburban communities. Environmentalists tell us that breathing smog is damaging to our lungs, which is a valid reason to exercise the freedom of choice not to live in a large city. Just as concentrated vehicle exhaust gases and industrial air pollution are inherent risks of the choice to live in urban and industrial environments, tobacco smoke is an inherent risk of patronizing business establishments where smoking is permitted.

A stronger argument against smoking in bars and restaurants is made by individuals who work in the food and drink service industry, because they are exposed to second-hand smoke continually. On the other hand, if second-hand smoke is that much of a concern, choosing to work in a smoking environment is similar to someone who is afraid of skin cancer becoming an outdoor lifeguard. Nobody is obligated to work in the food service industry and the choice to seek employment only in business establishments whose owners choose to enforce a smoking ban is always an option.