Working Conditions Smoking Bans in

Working Conditions Smoking bans in New York City Restaurants: Saving the lives of those who serve the public 'their daily bread' Smoking is legal because it is presumed to be a behavioral choice; albeit one that has major consequences for society in terms of healthcare costs. Yet workers in the restaurant and hospitality industry have no choice but to breathe in carcinogenic fumes for hours and hours simply to do their jobs.

The words 'second-hand smoke' may sound benign, but "the smoke that burns off the end of a cigarette or cigar actually contains more harmful substances than the smoke inhaled by the smoker. This means that people who don't smoke but are regularly around those who smoke are exposed to the health risks of cigarette smoking" (the dangers of second-hand smoke, 2009, the Cleveland Clinic). In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies secondhand smoke as a Group a carcinogen, putting it in the same category as radon and asbestos (Filler 2006, p.1).

Just as workers were exposed to asbestos many years ago, restaurant workers in establishments that allow smoking are exposed to health risks, up to 200 times the EPA-approved acceptable risk for lung cancer and 2,000 times the acceptable risk for heart disease, all through passive smoke exposure. There is no safe level of exposure for Group a toxins like secondhand smoke yet levels of this carcinogen are 1.6 to 2.0 times higher in restaurants and 3.9 to 6.1 times higher in bars than other businesses.

Workers exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace are 34% more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who are not subject to such exposure (Filler 2006, p.1). "A case study was conducted in a restaurant on employees before and after a smoking ban was passed. Researcher found that lung function increased among employees after the implementation of the ban, especially among non-smokers and asthmatics" (Filler 2006, p.2). This is why calls to ban smoking in restaurants and bars have become so vociferous.

In 2003, "moving with unexpected swiftness, New York state lawmakers passed a sweeping anti-smoking measure" that banned smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants, bars, and hotels (Frumkin 2003). Some opponents within the restaurant industry complained this would result in a loss of business, particularly restaurants and bars that cater European tourists in New York City, as most Europeans are still are accustomed to smoking while they eat or drink. Industry representatives argued that workers make the choice to work within an establishment that is filled with smoke.

But the same argument could be made about workers who 'choose' to work with toxic chemicals or under hazardous conditions.

There are regulations designed to minimize the exposure of healthcare workers to radiation, and landscapers to chemicals in pesticides -- why should waiters and bartenders be exempt from such legislative care and concern? For a career waiter or waitress, especially a recent immigrant with few English skills working as a busboy with few job opportunities, the idea of 'choosing' to work in a restaurant and to suffer the health effects of secondhand smoke seems laughable.

Bar and restaurant owners also contend they have the right to set the terms of their employment, and to create a particular atmosphere in their restaurants -- including a sophisticated or seedy image that allows for smoking. However, foot traffic at restaurants and bars actually rose after the ban went into effect (Rutenberg & Koppel 2005, p.1). Even one smoker admitted he was converted to a non-smoking atmosphere, saying now: "I'm all for it. My dry-cleaning bill's gone way down…and I'm smoking less" (Rutenberg & Koppel 2005, p.2).

Once upon a time, smoking was allowed in all workplaces. However, as the health consequences of smoking became know, more people adapted to the smoke-free environments, and Americans are less likely to smoke, because it is less socially acceptable. Just like 'sin taxes' and banning vending machines, prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars makes the practice less socially acceptable, and less costly to the nation in terms of healthcare, as well as less costly in terms of worker health.

It sets an example for all patrons that smoking is not normative. Nonsmoking restaurant patrons should not have to suffer inhaling the smell of tobacco, especially while paying New York City prices for food and drink. Furthermore, the ban does not apply to outdoor locations or cigar bars, so people can still smoke in a few select hospitality-related establishments (Cross 2009).

However, by severely limiting the types of establishments were smoking is allowed, as well as the location, career waiters and other industry employees will not have to chose between their livelihood and their lives -- they can choose to work in a non-smoking environment. The consequences of smoking are never limited to the individual: even someone who makes the choice to smoke 'costs' the system in his or her added.