Smoking Bans in Restaurants Second-Hand

Smoking Bans in Restaurants

Second-hand tobacco smoke is a divisive social issue between those who maintain that the public has a right not be subjected to the harms of second-hand smoke in public areas and those who oppose any imposition on their right to smoke except on private property. The main thrust of the argument for smoking bans in this vocational environment is that smoking in the restaurant workplace subjects non-smokers to some of the medical and other physiological consequences of smoking without their consent. The counterargument is that non-smokers have the option of working or not working (and of patronizing or not patronizing) any business establishment they want to but they have no right to impose their sensibilities on other people.

Argument:

There are several justifications for smoking bans in restaurants (and other public areas). Second-hand tobacco smoke presents some of the very same risks and consequences as first-hand tobacco smoke (Nizza, 2008). According to medical experts

(Repace, 2004), regular exposure to second-hand smoke is responsible for respiratory, cardiac, and circulatory disorders in non-smokers, although not at the same rate as smokers themselves.

In their view, smoking at work endangers the lives of non-smokers without their consent. In fact, even beyond any issues of human health, smoking damages a wide range of organic and inorganic materials, such as in the home and in vehicles. As a result, smoking bans have been introduced by private realty companies and homeowners' associations (O'Neill & Lite, 2008).

Restaurants frequently maintain strict rules about both employee and customer attire, purely for their desired image or "ambience," yet there are no complaints from workers who oppose the business's right to impose rules of attire. Neither private restaurants nor public authorities have any desire to discriminate against smokers for being smokers any more than they discriminate against loud belchers or nudists. On the other hand they have at least as much justification for prohibiting smoking on premises as they do to require ties and to prohibit loud belching and nudism in their establishment.

Counterargument:

There is no conclusive proof that second-hand smoke is a threat to non-smokers in the workplace. Even if it is, the rights of the public should not be determined by the sensibilities and fears of individuals. Everyone has a right to prohibit smoking on his or her private property and nobody is obligated to work or to eat anywhere that allows smoking.

At the very least, some restaurant owners who oppose anti-smoking legislation believe that the decision to allow or prohibit smoking in restaurants should be reserved to owners and managers of private businesses (Nizza, 2008). Just as workers and patrons have the choice to work or eat wherever they prefer, private business management should have the same choice to cater to a smoking or a non-smoking crowd (Aamot, 2008).

Refutation of Counterargument:

James Repace, is a former senior science policy analyst who worked at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety & Health

Administration (OSHA) for 19 years and as a research physicist at the Naval Research

Laboratory for 11 years. According to Repace, OSHA first proposed regulating secondhand smoke as a workplace hazard after determining that it caused as many as 14,000 worker deaths annually, far surpassing any other toxic hazard to workers.

Subsequently, the National Cancer Institute endorsed an estimate by the California EPA

that passive smoking caused as many as 65,000 deaths a year in the United States from heart disease and lung cancer alone (Repace, 2004).

Furthermore, while nobody is obligated to work (or to eat) in any particular restaurant, there is no justification for requiring non-smokers to choose between taking a specific job and eating at a restaurant or subjecting themselves to second-hand smoke. In principle, non-smoking restaurant workers should not have to make the choice between accepting a job offer at the expense of their health or rejecting it and non-smokers in public should not have to be exposed to medical risks that others choose to take without their consent.