Ban the Ban: Public Smoking Bans Hurt Society More Than Smoke
I still have friends and associates who forget. On a recent trip to New York City one casually asked if our rooms were smoking or non-smoking. I felt bad when I reminded him about the public ban in New York City. Then I stopped to think about these bans. Have we ever considered what exactly we are doing when we impose them? Advocates praise smoking bans as a necessary measure for public health, but at what cost? Moreover, who exactly are we protecting? And do we even need the government to police smoking?
Many business owners have actively fought public smoking bans, claiming that they will negatively impact their client base and could eventually put them out of business. Ban Advocates then, in turn, present economic reports proving that areas with these bans suffer economic growth rather than recession. Their conclusion: Smoking bans help the economy in addition to promoting public health. However, this conclusion does not logically follow the premise.
The business owners who cry foul when a smoking ban is proposed are seldom franchise owners. Many of the complaints come from sole proprietorships, independent 'mom and pop' businesses that have no corporate backing or support. If Wendy owns a tavern that relies on regular customers who happen to smoke, a smoking ban is going to hurt Wendy's business, period. However, this does not mean that Wendy's business will not be replaced and storefronts will be left empty throughout town. As Wendy's shuts its doors a Bennigans, Applebee's, TGI Friday's or Ruby Tuesday can freely open up shop. The result: Local businesses close and are replaced by franchise operations who can attract new customers with a famous name. How does this impact the local economy? Favorably, actually. The small mom and pop bar and grill is now replaced with a brand new building with a name that everybody, even visitors, can recognize. The economy, in terms of local businesses and income generated from taxing these businesses, will increase. Reports will show an economic growth. That is not necessarily a good thing, however, if you value locally owned businesses.
Can these bans be applied in a fair way across all businesses? That depends on what businesses are in the locality in question. A smoking ban will probably yield favorable results for a family restaurant. If the town or city has a cigar bar, however, the ban is very quickly going to put some people out of work. Restaurants like family diners cater to, as one might imagine, families. Bringing children into a smoke-filled environment is a great concern for ban advocates. After all, children cannot help but breathe the harmful second-hand smoke. In adult environments, particularly places such as the hypothetical cigar bar I just mentioned, there exists no expectation of a smoke-free environment.
Is government intervention needed? Imagine you own a diner with a limited menu. Every day, two to three people complain to you that you do not serve French Fries. They say that they are going to take their business to a competing diner that offers French Fries. Does it take a business guru to know that perhaps the time to offer French Fries is now? Customer feedback is essential to making wise business choices. The customer may always be right but that doesn't mean that one customer gets to overrule the rest. But when the majority of customers all demand the same thing, any business that fails to comply will most likely not last in an ever-changing market where there are plenty of substitutes available. The point? Before you take your issue to the polls, why not take it to the manager or owner of the restaurant in question? Enough complaints about smoking could very well lead to that restaurant or bar going smoke-free without being forced by the government. If businesses are made aware of an increasing demand, they will be sure to supply. In this case, if consumers are demanding smoke-free eating environments, businesses will step up to the plate and offer smoke-free eating establishments. This is the reason why in cities without bans there exist non-smoking restaurants, and why in New York City, even before the ban took effect, there were a number of restaurants that did not permit smoking, even in outdoor cafes. Let the market police itself.
Sometimes people don't stop to think about how legislation affects us beyond its noble intent. It is a basic principle of Economics, however, that actions have unintended consequences. Public Smoking Bans don't preserve health, that can only be done by the individual. Public Smoking Bans do promote recession, limited freedom and loss of the ability to choose for oneself. If these bans are such a great idea, how come they didn't work out in the 1920's when they banned alcohol?
Published by P.S. Oliver
P.S. Oliver is a Financial Professional living in New York. A U.S. Navy Veteran, P.S. Oliver received his education at the University of Scranton (B.A. Philosophy) and Colorado Technical University (B.S. Bu... View profile
Christmas Celebrations in New York City for the Whole FamilyNew York City has hundreds of great family orientated event and activities. In this article you will find out about some of the best and most popular along with some lesser-kno...
Best Places for Thanksgiving and Holiday Meals in New York CityNew York City is full of excellent restaurants, many of them offering holiday meals. This article highlights 10 of New York City's best places to go for a Thanksgiving holiday...- Kids Activities in New York CityKids need to be entertained in New York City. Here are some ideas on where to take your New York City kid.
- How to Get Your Kid to Be Active in New York CityKids in New York City can find many activities to keep themselves entertained.
Kids Activities in New York City There is so much to do with young people in New York City, especially once you start to research the possibilities, it is mind boggling!
- Smoking Ban Across the States
- New York City During the Holidays
- Guide to Celebrating the Holidays in New York City
- FREE Wi-Fi Hotspots in New York City so You Can Stay Connected
- Free Movies in New York City
- Coffee Shops Off the Beaten Path in New York City
- Brunch in New York City Makes Traffic Stop
5 Comments
Post a CommentYou'd have us believe smoking bans are behind the economic crisis, next. The fact is, if everyone bans smoking, everyone is on the same footing. And because smoking affects everyone, not just the smoker, it should be banned publicly. Your rights end where another's rights begin. All I see here is selfishness. A typical meal in a restaurant lasts less than an hour. If you can't go 1 hour without having a cigarette, it's time to examine your life.
I still believe it is too early to accurately assess either the positive or negative results of this ban. However, smokers who want to smoke can eat at any restaurant they want (they just can't smoke inside). They've always been able to eat anywhere they want, but the difference is that non-smokers now enjoy the same opportunity, which was not given to them before the regulation.
If I, as a consumer, wish to dine at a restaurant (franchise name or not), I choose to do so because of the food available on the menu. Though some people still debate the issue, a majority of scientists theorize that second hand smoke causes health issues. From this, I will assume that being subjected to second hand smoke will relate to dwindling health (even if only slightly). Having said that, if the restaurant of my choice includes an unavoidable smoking section, my decision to eat there becomes harder. You seem to claim that if consumers don't like restaurants with smoke, then they can choose to go somewhere else. But why should I have to avoid eating food that I like because someone else wants to smoke? This is where an opportunity for economic growth becomes possible after a regulation that bans smoking. People again are given choice to attend any restaurant without concerns of health issues (related to smoking at least). I still believe it is too early to accurately ass
So you don't think an Applebee's has an advantage over a Mom and Pop diner? They would not compete on the same playing field because the franchise has a name recognition that smaller, privately held companies do not have.
Your assertions are sophomoric and a perfect example of someone who can read a textbook but not apply the knowledge to everyday situations. In New York City PRIOR to the ban taking effect, a number of restaurants banned smoking in response to a market demand for smoke-free establishments. There was no government regulation, just a group of people who didn't want smoke filled restaurants. Some restaurants responded to that demand, while others catered to the consumers who wanted to smoke.
The result, some places were smoke-free and others were not, leaving the consumer the choice of establishment without imposing one choice on all consumers through legislation. Your name speaks volumes, you are a VERY bad economist.
First, you simply do not support your conjecture that a local business is more at risk than a franchise in a smoke free town. Both would continue to complete on the same playing field, and there is no reason to suppose the franchise can afford to operate smoke-free more than a local operation. Second, you ignore the negative externality that smoking creates (i.e., a negative effect on someone other than the principle market actor), and such externalites cannot be corrected, by definition, even by a completely efficient market. The market must be regulated in such situations. Just like polluters will not stop polluting due to "market" forces alone. Either government or an engineered market is necessary.