Smoking ban policies and public health effects

Smoking Ban

Anti-smoking campaigns have led to a wave of smoking bans across the country during recent years. Whether one is for or against them, smoking bans are apparently here to stay, at least for a while, perhaps until the pendulum swings in another direction. One of the national health objectives for the year 2010 is to establish laws, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC). that prohibit or restrict smoking in public places and worksites (MacNeil pp).

In 2003, New York, following California and Delaware, became the third state to ban smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars, and hotels (Frumkin pp). The bill excepts only American-Indian owned casinos, cigar bars that are already licensed in New York City, fraternal clubs, outdoor areas of restaurants with no roof or awning, private homes and personal but not company cars (Frumkin pp). Florida, Maine, Utah and Vermont also have smoking bans for most restaurants, however the bans in these states are not comprehensive and generally permit smoking in stand-alone bars (Frumkin pp). Then there are several municipalities, such as Boston, Massachusetts, Dallas, Texas, New York, New York, Honolulu, Hawaii, St. Helena, Montana, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Tempe, Arizona, that restrict smoking in restaurants (Frumkin pp).

The New York's ban took effect on July 24, 2003, where smoking was permitted and where local ordinances were weaker, and although the law did not supersede the stricter measures previously passed in Westchester and Nassau counties, it did replace elements of New York City's new law, which took effect March 30, 2003 (Frumkin pp). New York's state anti-smoking law took a harder line than the city's controversial ordinance because it eliminated exemptions for owner-operated bars and prohibited operators from establishing or continuing to operate separately ventilated smoking rooms (Frumkin pp). Private clubs operated by fraternal organizations, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, retained their exemption status under the new law, although it requires all jobs to be performed by uncompensated members of the organization, which makes it more difficult for many private clubs to permit smoking (Frumkin pp). The New York State Restaurant Association had argued that anything short of total prohibition in all types of workplaces would put its 8,000 members at a competitive disadvantage, thus they gave unqualified support to the measure, stating that the bill provided uniformity and a level playing field (Frumkin pp).

In 2001, only 14% of the U.S. population was covered by total or partial smoking bans, however, with the passage of the New York state law, it is estimated that approximately 30% of the nation is now covered (Frumkin pp). There are currently about 70 communities across Massachusetts, which represents more than 50% of the population, that already have bans in place (Frumkin pp). Yet, Delaware's enacted workplace-smoking ban is being challenged by casino operators and bar and tavern owners who are seeking exemptions for the operations (Frumkin pp). This scenario is becoming fairly common, beginning with smaller cities, then the larger areas, and then finally the entire state passes a smoking ban (Frumkin pp).

However, restaurateurs across the state of New York have mixed opinions regarding the new law (Frumkin pp). One owner of a French fine-dining restaurant in Dutchess county, where a ban took effect earlier, said he was glad to see the state ban because he was losing customers who were going across the Hudson River to Ulster county, which did not have a smoking ban (Frumkin pp). And many people believe that in the long run, people will get used to dining without smoking, just as they did with flying on airlines without being allowed to light up (Frumkin pp).

But not all New York restaurateurs are happy with the law, such as the owner of the Cellar Bar in Larchmont, New York and manager of the Willett House in Port Chester, New York, who claims of losing business to restaurants across the Connecticut border, and hopes that Connecticut and New Jersey do not follow the path of New York (Frumkin pp). Many believe that the ban is a bad idea, and as far as being a workplace issue, no restaurant or bar employees came forward to complain, mainly because they know that patrons who drink and smoke are often better tippers (Frumkin pp). Others believe that the property owner should have an option of whether to provide a smoke-free environment for his or her employees (Frumkin pp).