Smoking Bans: Unconstitutional or Unhealthy?

Arguments concerning the smoking bans in restaurants, from proponent and opponent perspectives, reveal uses of the concepts of appeal to fear and appeal to authority. Some argue that a ban will promote a healthier atmosphere for customers. Yet others believe businesses will lose substantial sums of money due to smoking customers taking their business to other towns and establishments within those towns that still allow smoking, these arguments will be investigated at length also. Finally, the idea of other techniques which could be used instead of banning smoking in establishments such as restaurants or other hospitality establishments will be discussed as well.

Town after town have discussed and voted on laws that would make smoking in restaurants or other hospitality establishments illegal. To date, the state has imposed a smoking ban for hospitals and the property, and other medical facilities. Argument after argument have taken place concerning human rights and the constitution where the freedom to smoke in public is concerned. Many citizens are concerned that the law makers are over stepping their bounds into their private lives. In other words, a dictatorship could be occurring in a land where her citizen's are supposed to have freedom.

Are bans the best answer for all?

For the past several years cities across the United States have introduced bans on smoking in public places, or imposed strict guidelines for those places that allowed smoking. Here in Southwest Missouri, referred to as 'The Ozarks', many communities have began to start banning smoking in restaurants. Town after town has discussed and voted on laws that would make smoking in restaurants illegal and the state has made smoking illegal on hospital property state-wide. Arguments concerning the smoking bans in restaurants, from proponent and opponent perspectives, reveal uses of the concepts of appeal to fear and appeal to authority.

Proponents for the smoking bans argue that the smoking ban will provide a healthier atmosphere at little, if any cost, to the restaurant business. Mayor Ron Moss of Maryville was reported stating that he did not consider the smoking ban an issue for business owners because every restaurant in Maryville must obey the ordinance and smoking patrons would have to leave town to find a restaurant that allows smoking. (www.no-smoking.org, 2003).

Mayor Moss is simply using his authority to appeal to restaurant business owners stating that all the restaurants in his city would not allow smoking if the law is passed and because the smoking ban would be throughout his city that the restaurants owners should see minimum, if any, loss of business.

Most cities have allowed smoking to continue in restaurants that can prove that a certain amount of their business is produced by liquor sales. Thus promoting increased liquor consumption. So this law may force smokers that once frequented non-liquor serving restaurants to begin frequenting liquor serving restaurants, but at the same time this will push those business owners to try to promote their liquor sales to maintain the required liquor sales percentage required by law to continue to allow smoking.

The argument:

Some proponents have argued that the smoking bans will provide a healthier atmosphere for everyone, patrons and employees alike. Dr. Pat Harr, a physician at St. Francis Hospital in Maryville, was reported telling the Maryville Council that 400,000 people in the United States die every year from smoking and that 10 percent of those deaths are victims of second-hand smoke. "The council has an extraordinary opportunity here to do something for the health of the citizens of Maryville by passing this ordinance that would allow everyone to eat in a smoke-free environment and thus reduce the risk of significant heart disease." (www.no-smoking.org, 2003).

Data collected by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project shows that in smaller areas a smoking ban was found to decrease acute myocardial infarction reports by up to 40%. While in other larger areas found a minimum decrease or in some cases a 4 to 6% increase. (kuneman.smokersclub.com, 2005).

Another concern is third hand smoke, this is a relatively new study being done by scientist to determine the health risks from the particles and chemicals from the cigarettes stick to the walls, clothes, hair, and skin that researchers have also found could get ingested, absorbed or inhaled through the skin of infants and non-smokers. Though this is not clear if there is a health hazard with third hand smoke, more studies are needed to determine the health risk. (www.medindia.net, 2006).

Opponents of the smoking bans argue that restaurants will lose business, that the law is unfair, discrimination, and unconstitutional. Steve Branstetter, owner of a restaurant outside of the city limits were a smoking ban was being debated was quoted saying to the Nixa Board of aldermen, "Stay out of the restaurant business. Let restaurant people run the restaurant business." (www.smokersclubinc.com, 2005).

Like Steve Branstetter, most restaurant owners believe that the government should let the restaurant owners decided on how to run their own business. Many restaurant owners believe that their smoking customers will take their business outside the city where smoking is still allowed or to restaurants where liquor sells maintain a specific percentage of their sells. Yet other restaurant owners feel that a smoking ban will provide an 'equal playing field' between those that currently do not permit smoking and those that do. Their reasoning is that they cater to those who do not smoke, or in a franchise industry that does not permit smoking and believe if all restaurants did not allow smoking then those that frequent these restaurants that currently permit smoking that some would venture to other local venues.

The author of an article posted on BakerOrange.com (Baker University's website) "Smoking Ban Unconstitutional" describes the reason the author feels that the smoking bans are unconstitutional. The author states, "A similar law would be prohibiting a restaurant or bar from serving alcohol. If a patron consumes too much booze and drives, there is a good chance he will get in a wreck and injure or kill another person." (media.www.thebakerorange.com, 1995). The author also states how this smoking ban for the city of Lawrence was for the purpose to eliminate people's exposure to secondhand smoke, thus adding that secondhand smoke can be avoided by choice.

Non-Smokers want the right to eat free from the hazard and smell of cigarette smoke. Smokers want the right to smoke when and where they want to which includes restaurants and feel that these laws are discriminative. Business owners are also split on this law; some feel that the smoking ban will make for a more level playing field when the smoking ban comes to attracting customers, while others feel that they will lose the business of their smoking customers.

Again, those who oppose the smoking ban claim that such a ban is unconstitutional, but what of the other side of the argument? Those who do not smoke or who have children being taken into an establishment that allows smoking, and generally one must walk through the smoking section to be seated in the non-smoking section, believe that not banning smoking in said establishments is against their constitutional rights to breathe healthy clean air. The dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke have been proven to cause irreparable damage to the lungs, why must people be subjected against their will to such dangerous environments?

Consider business owners who offer smoking sections, they not only stand the chance of losing customers should they remove smoking sections, but they also stand to lose customers if they decide to keep the smoking sections. The owners of smoking establishments should consider all sides of the issue, which loss will be greater? Losing the non-smoking customers or the smoking customers?

Other options?

Could something else be done instead of restaurants being forced to ban smoking? If management moved the smoking section to the back of the establishment so non-smoking customers can avoid the smoke all together and install more effective and numerous exhaust fans throughout the section and establishment as a whole, would that be enough of a difference? Would this new expense be more than the potential loss of either type of customer?

According to Lawrence Kilham of Eco Sensors, Inc. and Randall Dodd of Clean Air Systems, Inc., in a study of bingo halls, using Ozone is more effective in both cost and results where removing or diluting smoking odors and gases in establishments is concerned. (www.ecosnesors.com, 1999). In fact, their claim is that Imperials Bingo Hall "...uses its air quality as a marketing tool..." thus, creating positive feedback from both, smokers and non-smokers alike. (www.ecosensors.com, 1999).

One could still use massive exhaust systems and HVAC systems, but they should expect to spend close to $20,000. These systems may be worth the cost and effort and an establishment could expect to see a change in the gases in the air and flow of those gases (smoke), though the odor will not be altered, nor would the residue on surfaces decrease.

Should an owner choose to use Ozone, one could expect a greater reduction in gases, odor, and residual attachment to dust particles, hard surfaces, and fabrics, thus creating an odor-free and increased air quality environment.

Conclusion:

As stated before, towns and local governments have discussed and voted on laws that make smoking in restaurants or other hospitality establishments illegal. To date, the state has imposed a smoking ban for hospitals and the property, and other medical facilities, and strangely enough, on any given day patients and family members alike can be seen on the side of the road smoking.

Arguments for human rights, both for and against smoking bans, and the constitution where the freedom to smoke, or not, in public is concerned. Citizens are concerned that local governments are over stepping their bounds by enforcing laws that infringe upon their private lives. In other words, a dictatorship could be occurring in a land where her citizen's are supposed to have freedom.

Arguments concerning the smoking bans in restaurants, from proponent and opponent perspectives were discussed which revealed uses of the concepts of appeal to fear and appeal to authority. Some argued that a ban promotes healthier atmosphere for customers and workers alike, thereby eventually decreasing health issues and health care costs for many.

Others believe businesses will lose substantial sums of money due to smoking customers taking their business to other towns and establishments within those towns that still allow smoking, these arguments were investigated at length also. Finally, the idea of other techniques which could be used instead of banning smoking in establishments such as restaurants or other hospitality establishments were discussed as well. These alternatives do not dictate laws upon patrons and still insures clean, yet fresh smelling air for all that visit an establishment that chooses to use certain alternatives, which are costly at the beginning but are reported to pay for themselves within the first year of use. Businesses can use the fact they utilize such options like Ozone as a money marketing tool and thereby not losing patrons, instead increasing customer flow. This is America; one should feel comfort in the fact that there are options and alternatives to dictatorship.

References:

Child Health News. (2006). Babies could be exposed to third hand smoke if parents are

smokers. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from

http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?str=1&x=13153

Kilham, L., Dodd, R. (1999). Case study: Imperials Bingo Hall. Renton, Washington.

Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://www.ecosensors.com/AT-102.odt

Kuneman D, W., McFadden, M, J. (2005). Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in

admissions for myocardial infarction in hospitals?A Preliminary Study. Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/hospitaladmissions.html

Myers, J. (2003). MO City Bans Smoking in Restaurants. St. Joseph News PressOnline.

Retrieved May 19, 2007, from http://www.no-smoking.org/june03/06-11-03-4

Simone, J.J. De. (2007). Smoking ban unconstitutional. Baker University. Retrieved May

21, 2007, from

http://media.www.thebakerorange.com/media/storage/paper1028/news/2007/05/04/Opinion/Smoking.Ban.Unconstitutional-2894228.shtml

Tang, D. (2005). Nixa won't have vote on smoke ban. The United Pro Choice Smokers

Rights Newsletter. News-Leader. Retrieved May 20, 2007, from

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2454