Smoking Ban Clears the Way for Non-Smokers to Enjoy Going Out
As St. Louis County considers a ban on smoking in public spaces the rhetoric is increasing. Chief among the anti-ban comments is smokers won’t stay around restaurants and spend money. Unlike California we don’t have the weather for year round patio use to keep smokers spending money. So the scare tactic is smokers will quickly leave restaurants and won’t watch games at bars. BS.
A remotely valid argument is that while smoking doesn’t hurt business it doesn’t help either. That is, restaurants in non-smoking states grow at slower rates than restaurants in smoking states. It is hard to say if this is true as so many studies are being thrown around. Lets assume it is true.
What about the growth rate of lung cancer in states with smoking bans? It is too early to know the long term effects (pro & con) of a smoking ban. I think St. Louis County, St. Louis City and the entire State of Missouri should be give it a try. If it turns out in 2025 that the ban didn’t have the desired results then allow smoking again. In the meantime I can actually enjoy going out for a couple of decades.
Most restaurants have a non-smoking section but often I end up 5 feet away from the smoking section with nothing to keep the smoke away from me. As a lifetime non-smoker I just can’t consume food around smoke. It is not appetizing. Still other places are in the dark ages and they don’t even offer a non-smoking section. Like most people, I enjoy dining alfresco but smokers are on the patio as well. Trying to get a meal without smoke is not exactly easy.
Going out to a bar for a beer is a different story. I’m not trying to eat food so I am bit more tolerant. Still, after a couple of hours my throat begins to get sore. I just can’t take it nor do I want to learn. Coming home from a night out means my clothing goes directly into the washing machine. Visits to California are so refreshing.
I can imagine that it is tough for smokers to quit. Everywhere they go people are smoking. Hardly conducive to quitting. Perhaps if these smokers quit they’d have more money to spend in restaurants and bars on food and drink? Or they have more money to spend on other consumer goods?
So in all the talk about the smokers going home early so they can light up where is the discussion of us non-smokers that might eat out more. That we might stay for dessert knowing we are going enjoy the moment. Or that we might go out for drinks rather than meet for drinks at home. Yes, restaurants & bars may lose some smokers’ business but they will gain the business of non-smokers.
I’m not a prude. If someone wants to drink I don’t care. If they want to smoke some pot I don’t care. If someone wants to smoke cigarettes I don’t care. I begin to care when my personal space is intruded. I drink but I have friends that don’t. My having a drink doesn’t force them to taste the liquor. A person next to me smoking does force me to inhale the smoke. The two vices are different.
Banning smoking on a city by city or county by county basis is likely to cause smokers to cross boundaries. This is why the state of Missouri should have the courage to ban smoking in public places state wide. If smokers want to cross the river to smoke in Illinois then so be it. Or perhaps then we institute a toll on the bridges?
– Steve
The Post-Dispatch ran an article on the possibility of the city of St. Louis instituting a smoking ban.
The article stated that two city aldermen were in favor such a ban. However, after reading it twice, I could only find the name of one alderman planning to present an anti-smoking bill-Freeman Bosley.
Two aldermen were cited in opposition to instituting smoking bans-Gregali and Oertmann.
Any idea who the second alderman in favor of a smoking ban is?
RB
[I read that story this morning after I had already written the above post. It wasn’t very clear. However, this paragraph should help:
“Bosley plans to sponsor a bill that mirrors the proposal in St. Louis County. Such a plan would likely square off against a more relaxed proposal planned by Alderman Stephen Gregali. He would allow business owners to “opt in” to a smoking ban, permitting them to register their establishments as smoke free with the city’s Health Department.”
Basically Gregali is proposing a way to designate a place a voluntarily smoke-free. This sounds like extra works for the Health department with little benefit. But, it might be a way to ease into the idea of no smoking in public?
My question is who besides Ortman owns a tavern? Would it be a conflict of interest for them to vote on legislation that directly affects their businesses? – Steve]
Having a non-smoking “section” in a restaurant is the same as having a non-peeing section in a swimming pool.
[Very good point Tom! – Steve]
I had an additional thought on Gregali’s proposal. The idea is to reverse it. That is, make places that want smoke to opt out of the smoking ban and register as a smoking establishment with the Health Department. They would need to pay a registration fee to cover administrative costs. As they write the check each year to allow their business to permit smoking maybe they will begin to evaluate how many smokers they have and consider going smoke-free. – Steve
I like Steve’s alternative proposal, but hopefully the cost to register as a smoker-friendly place would be minimal. What sort of monitoring would there need to be?
[I don’t think the cost should be so minimal. It should have two components – one is a flat fee to cover administrative and the second is based on receipts so that small taverns pay less than larger restaurants/bars. Nothing to break the bank but enough to know smoking isn’t a free ride – it costs society. – Steve]
Print a decal and put it on the front entrance stating that this house is a smoking establishment.
On the other hand, would you want to advertise your business in this way?
[Exactly! A “warning” sticker that the place permits smoking. This lets people with breathing issues and alergies avoid those establishments. Smokers may like it because they know they can smoke there. – Steve]
As a non-smoker, I know I’d tend to stay away from a place that was set up as a smoker’s haven.
On a personal level, ever since a recent bout with a particulary nasty and persistent flu bug, which has left me with a much more sensitive upper respiratory tract, just being near a smoker makes me feel instantly nauseous and head-achy.
RB
I had the same thought about registering as a smoking establishment, but it would have to be as an all smoking establishment.
I also find it interesting that none of my friends who smoke actually smoke in their house. No matter how cold it is they go outside. Why should it be different when they go to restaurants or bars?
Also I believe Joe Vollmer owns Milo’s on the Hill. Not sure where he stands on the issue.
My tenant, a nonsmoker, used to own two bars in Greenwich Village. Not any more. Six months after Mayor Bloomberg’s antismoking legislation was passed by New York’s City Council, he had to salvage what he could of his investment and move on.
Yet I’ve also read accounts of bar owners who experienced a short period of adjustment following the ban, after which customers bit the bullet, came back to the bar, and ran outdoors for a smoke whenever the need arose.
As you’d expect of a former smoker, I see both sides. I understand the feeling of being one of an aggrieved minority, but I feel the greater social good ought to prevail. I endorse Steve’s suggestion of a registry for smoking establishments as a concession.
When we were on South Grand recently, we went into a coffee bar unaware that it had a smoking-permitted policy. Can it be that we actually used to drink coffee in places that smelled like that, where the air itself seems to have died?
We ordered our coffee to go.
Jim Shrewsbury was quoted in the South City Journal as being if favor of St. Louis City passing a smoking ban that mirror’s anything St. Louis County may pass. He wants to have similar regulations in the two jurisdictions. Could he be the second Alderman the Post was referring to?
Not a smoker, but it would be interesting to see if a smoking ban in the county would drive people into city bars and restaraunts.
Florida banned smoking last year. Noone has closed down and us non-smokers love it. What happen was many more resturants opened outdoor seating areas where smoking is allowed. That is also a benefit for urban streets. Only true bars (no food service) still allow smoking. We love it here in Sarasota..
Joe Moraca
http://www.moraca.org
I’ve lived in California for 13 years and NEVER did I see a resaturant or bar suffer as a result of the nonsmoking policy. In fact, it was just the opposite. As a nonsmoker who just moved to this area from California, I am sadly disappointed that there are no restaurants and bars (other than fast food establishments) for us nonsmokers to go that is purely a nonsmoking establishment. I would love to sit at a bar having a drink or eat a nice meal in clean, fresh air. I hate to say it, but the Midwest and the St. Louis metropolitan area remain in the dark ages and would rather have people be exposed to the toxic fumes of others. I guess the good news is for some, that some things never change. California may have a repuation for the strange and unusual, but nonsmoking in bars, restaurants and other buildings is cutting edge.
More and more science is showing the health risks of secondhand smoke to be trivial at worst. The St. Louis County Council acted on the best cutting
edge research when it rejected a smoking ban and hung on to freedom. The trend in the near future will be to repeal smoking bans as needless violations of liberty. For the latest ETS science go to: http://www.nycclash.com