"SMOKING or non-smoking?" The question that we've all heard countless times in restaurants and hotels may soon be a thing of the past. In fact, there are many places where it already is. Despite the initial unpopularity of smoking bans, they are gaining increasing support as their successes are evaluated -- and may prove beneficial to smokers and non-smokers alike. These bans do not deserve to be regarded simply as an affront to liberty. Public health and safety is a far more worthy cause that deserves our support.
While various states and municipalities around the country have been toying with the idea of a ban on smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants for quite some time, New York City was one of the first to put such a restrictive ban into effect, on March 30, 2003. Smokers grumbled and restaurant and bar owners protested, all to no avail. Two years later, the ban seems to have had its desired effect.
Within a few decades, this country went from being a smoker's paradise to one where smokers have been forced to yield more to the interests of non-smokers. By the late 1990s, there was a more noticeable intolerance of smoking in public places. This was heralded in a large part by fast food chains banning smoking in their franchises as a matter of company policy. Policies hostile to smoking only increased from that point. For example, President Clinton issued an executive order banning smoking in federal government office buildings throughout the country in 1997.
Now, many other states and municipalities are looking to follow in New York City's footsteps. Like it was when the New York ban was first instituted, opposition is high. But is it warranted?
The most realistic concerns that entrepreneurs and legislators had regarding the New York ban were those relating to the economy. It seems natural that the ban would offend many customers, reducing business patronage. Smokers pledged to stay home from bars in protest of the ban. With that threat, legislators considered repealing the ban, pending negative effects. What the statistics showed, however, was unexpected. Research conducted by The Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco has reported no significant economic losses since the imposition of the ban. Its conclusions have been supported by public tax revenue records.
For now, the track record of such anti-smoking legislation is positive. Recently, Ireland adopted an even more stringent statute, becoming the first country to ban smoking in all enclosed workplaces. The act has achieved 80 percent compliance, according to government sources. Plans to enact ordinances comparable to New York's are on the table for legislatures in Colorado and New Jersey this week. Both, like New York, are states which derive a large amount of income from tourism, as well as casinos and gambling. As in New York prior to the ban, there exists a massive opposition such bans in both states.
Smokers have already begun to pull out all of the stops in arguing against a ban modeled after New York's. Perhaps the one most often repeated is the libertarian argument. Those in opposition to the bans have attemptedto contextualize their case within a constitutional framework, arguing somewhat awkwardly that there is an constitutional right which allows them to smoke on public property so long as they are not infringing on anybody else's rights. This argument might not be much more persuasive than the opposition's argument that non-smokers have a "right" to breathe clean air, but it does raise an important question: Can non-smokers claim that secondhand smoke is a severe enough hazard to afford them protection of the law?
Research conducted by American Association for Respiratory Care which reports on health hazards caused by secondhand smoke indicates that it is a leading contributor to cancers, diseases of the heart and lungs, as well as birth defects. These bans provide one of the best methods of attacking the problem at its root by eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
The AARC encourages non-smokers to "patronize restaurants with designated nonsmoking areas, and express your appreciation to the management." But we should question whether this is enough. While patrons have the opportunity to sit in a non-smoking section or choose to visit a non-smoking establishment, employees are most often not privileged to such discretion.
Clearly, non-smokers have an overriding liberty interest in their own physical safety, and in this case, it seems clear that they should triumph. Blanket smoking bans promote general health while ensuring consistency across the market by eliminating unfair competition. Legislators that support or have supported such statutes should be applauded for taking such bold steps to protect the interests of the entire public.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
