The Great Debate Over The Ban on Smoking in Bars

According to the American Lung Association, "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year"("Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet"); in addition, "Smoking related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year" ("Smoking 101 Fact Sheet"). It is a fact that smoking and secondhand smoke kills. However, cigarettes are still considered legal products to sell and consume in the United States. USA Today states that there are "Forty-five million adult American smokers" who consumed approximately "378 billion cigarettes" last year ("Cigarette Sales Hit Historic Low"). Within the last ten years there has been mass debate about the legality of bans on smoking in public venues, specifically in bars. Everyone has their own opinion on whether smoking should or should not be allowed in privately owned bars all over America.

Non-smokers and advocates for the ban on smoking in bars believe that it is done for the health and safety of employees and customers. Smokers and advocates against the ban on smoking in bars believe that it is a violation of their rights as citizens. They also maintain that people who frequent the bar and club scene do so by choice; if they do not wish to be surrounded by cigarette smoke they do not have to be there. On the same side, business owners believe that the ban on smoking in their bars is the cause for their loss in revenue. Although placing restrictions on private business is controversial, it is important to keep a level mind when considering whether a smoking ban in bars is an acceptable solution. Regrettably, the ban can be interpreted two ways, either a solution to the growing epidemic in smoking and secondhand smoke related illnesses, or a tragic loss of citizen's rights.

In the state of California there has been a ban on smoking in restaurants since 1995. However, the year 1998 brought about the initiation of a controversial new piece of legislation, which placed a ban on smoking in bars and clubs (Terry). The flurry that followed was a ban in bars and restaurants throughout various states in America. Amongst those to jump on board the bandwagon was New York, another major tourist state. New York had banned smoking in restaurants some time earlier, but it was not until 2003 that the state added a smoking ban to bars and clubs; an addition to the previous smoking ban laws which virtually barred smoking in every private business establishment in the state ("NYC Smoking Ban Debuts"). These bans were bound to see tough times ahead.

The initiation of a ban on smoking in bars in California, New York, and several other states was greeted with warm regard from some employee's of the newly fresh air establishments. Health concerns for employees, such as servers, bartenders, hosts, and cocktail waitresses were among the top reasons for the ban to even be considered. According to Tim Zagat, of Nation's Restaurant News, the health and safety of employees should be a number one priority stating, "Studies have shown that foodservice workers have a fifty-percent greater risk of dying from lung cancer than the general population, in part because of the high level of secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace." However, for every supporter of the smoking ban there is one violently opposed. In an interview with Don Terry of the New York Times, a bartender named Mr. Miller age fifty-three explains, "I've been a bartender for thirty-five years... I'm not a smoker and I'm healthy as a horse" (qtd. in Terry). Other employees such as cocktail waitresses and hosts feel the same. Many who are opposed to the ban believe that the time spent inhaling cigarette smoke is just simply not enough to cause any long-term problems, and that it is more of a nuisance then a solution. The underlying issue of enforced health by governmental laws and the general feeling of contempt for such laws (i.e. forcing employees to care about something not viewed as a problem) causes the heated debate to boil over.

A smoking ban in bars and clubs was not the first idea to improve health among customers who frequent such establishments. Initially the ban was only meant to cover restaurants and allow bars to continue to welcome smokers during their hours of operation. However, the idea to install high-powered systems to provide sufficient ventilation for the smoky environment never quite panned out, and what was done about it is history (Terry). New York's former mayor Michael Bloomberg explains, "Fundamentally, people just don't want the guy next to them smoking" (qtd. in"NYC Smoking Ban Debuts"). The effort to clear the air for customers was duly noted by bar owners and their employees, however, they continue to maintain that if customers do not wish to be surrounded by smoke they should not frequent a business where smoking is commonplace. Restaurants that offer a full bar selection are a great place for such patrons to go as smoking has been banned in restaurants for years with little contest from the parties involved. Forrest Miller, a bartender in Hollywood, California says, "About one hundred people have already signed a petition (I) keep behind the bar seeking a repeal of the law" (qtd in Terry). In other words, guests who don't mind spending an evening in a smoke filled bar are typically they type of people who do so. The overall health and happiness of the community is the obvious the goal of lawmakers, officials desire to make an equal situation for those who smoke and those who do not. The problem is that by making restaurants smoke free, they have created yet another unequal situation. The teeter-totter of can and cannot in society is one that will inevitably leave one side of the population dissatisfied.

Finally, smoking bans have raised an important question for both business owners and employees alike. Some staff members argue that the ban has dissuaded they're usual costumers from frequenting their establishments due to the restriction. In an article from the St. Petersburg Times in Florida, a bartender notes, "... (my) tips have fallen 15 percent to 30 percent in the past six months." The article goes even further to discuss the situation of business owner Deborah Iannuzzi who cites, "...bar receipts fell at least sixty-eight percent" (qtd. in St. Petersburg Times). This is indeed a significant loss in business, no doubt. Still, anti-smoking lawmakers and analysts maintain that the monetary loss is simply not the case; in fact business revenue has actually improved as a result of the ban. They highlight their stance by explaining that customers are enjoying the fresh clean air and actually frequenting the restaurants they would usually pass up due to the toxic environment (Zagat). After reviewing a research study by Harvard School of Public Health, The Boston Globe concluded that "Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of the statewide smoking ban" (Smith). The debate on whether smoking in bars is actually bad for business rages on and does not appeared to be quelled by any amount of numbers and facts on either side.

The fact of the matter is that both sides produce shocking numbers concerning the decline or increase in business, provide convincing arguments for a healthier bar, and strongly suggest that those who do not appreciate the smoke go elsewhere. For a true assessment to be made on the impact of smoking bans throughout the United States issues such as location need to be taken into consideration. It appears that southern states such as Florida experience a more difficult time making the transition to a non-smoking environment, whereas eastern states such as Massachusetts experience an easier transition and even an influx in business. It is difficult to say whether these differences can be attributed to demographics or ethnic backgrounds, or whether it can all be chalked up to personal preferences. A fair and level approach when discussing the issues of smoking bans in bars is the only clear constant in this debate.

Works Cited

American Lung Association. "Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet." American Lung

Association. Jun. 2003. 19 Jul. 2007 . Path: Quit

Smoking; All About Smoking; Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet.

American Lung Association. "Smoking 101 Fact Sheet." May 2007. 19 Jul. 2007

. Path: Quit Smoking; All About Smoking; Smoking 101 Fact Sheet.

Associated Press. "Cigarette Sales Hit Historic Low." USA Today. 9 Mar. 2006. 19 Jul. 2007 .

Associated Press. "Smoking Ban Chops Business." St. Petersburg Times. 21 Dec. 2003. 19 Jul. 2007

"NYC Smoking Ban Debuts: Smoking Ban Affects Bars, Nightclubs." CBS News. 30 Mar. 2003. 19 Jul. 2007

Smith, Stephan. "Restaurants, Bars Gain Business Under Smoke Ban." The Boston

Globe. 4 Apr. 2005. Boston.com Arts & Entertainment. 19 Jul. 2007 _gain_business_under_smoke_ban/>.

Terry, Don. "California's Ban To Clear Smoke Inside Most Bars." 31 Dec. 1997. 19 Jul. 2007

http://www.query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9C00EFD61331F932A05751C1A961958260>.

Zagat, Tim. "Happier, Healthier, Employees and Guests Prove Smoke Bans Are Better

For Business." National Restaurant News 40.32 (2006): 24. ABI/INFORM

Global. ProQuest. University of Maryland University Coll. Lib., Adelphi, MD. 19 Jul. 2007