Of Note: Open Thread for July 13-19, 2008 (18 comments) , Gas Price Finder

« Erie PA News and Events for Sunday November 12, 2006 | Main | Erie PA News and Events for Monday November 13, 2006 »

Proposed Smoking Ban Is Good For Erie County

If you’re like me, then you make it a daily ritual to parse through the various opinion letters on GoErie. The recent spate of letters crying foul over the proposed smoking ban has caught my attention. In large part I think criticism surrounding the proposed ordinance is unfounded. As an occassional cigar smoker (yes, I’m one of those people) I have no problem smoking elsewhere. In fact, I’m already unable to smoke in most places that allow smoking, but only for those with cigarettes.

My (least) favorite argument being made is that non-smokers can choose to stay home or go to non-smoking establishments. Why not turn it around and say smokers can choose to stay home or go to open-air establishments? The argument works both ways and doesn’t advance any reasonable discussion on the issue.

Another poor argument is that the smoking ban is an example of big government making health decisions for people. Although this may be an indirect result of the ordinance I think it is better understood another way: not so much the government keeping people from hurting themselves but instead, preventing people from hurting others. Therein lies the purpose of the smoking ban. Its the unwelcomed carcinogens. Smokers are free to continue smoking at home or outside public places. Politicians and government officials need to keep the argument limited to those who are being exposed to the second-hand smoke. Smokers have already made their choice.

Making the claim that the next logical step is for government to ban meat, butter, and snack foods also fails since it isn’t my cholesterol that increases when somebody else eats a rare steak or an order of french fries, but their own. Call me an optimist, but I think it’s safe to say no such laws will ever come into existence. If something like this does become law, then I’ll be the first to search for a black-market steak house willing to serve up red meat.

An often overlooked point is that we already have laws and regulations similar to the proposed smoking ban. State law makes it illegal for a person to drive with a blood-alcohol level above a certain percentage, which dictates how much a person will drink when they go out for the evening. I’m sure if it was safe to inhale a certain amount of smoke without suffering adverse health symptoms we would have a law similar to drunk driving laws. Now that comparison may be a little disingenuous, but the point is that the government already indirectly regulates our personal health choices (drug prescriptions and importation, nutrition labels, USDA inspections, etc) which doesn’t seem to bother the majority of Americans. The truth of the matter is that second hand smoke is dangerous—justifying a smoking ban.

The argument that businesses will suffer because of the ban is probably the most legitimate concern that has been made. There is anecdotal evidence out there to suggest that some businesses have suffered in places where smoking bans have been enacted. But then again it is anecdotal. The NY Times published an article on the result of the NY city smoking ban nine months after it passed it, coming to the conclusion that;

The early evidence, however, is that many businesses are unharmed. In fact, though rumors swirl in an environment where every bit of news is trumpeted by the side it favors, a reporter could not verify that one bar, restaurant or club, of the more than 20,000 in the city, had closed solely because of the smoking ban.(1)

Following that article, someone wrote to the NY Times giving cold hard statistics stating “New York’s bars and restaurants paid the city 12 percent more in business taxes in the months since the ban began than they did in the corresponding six-month period in 2002.” That ends up being over a million dollars more the city took in post-smoking ban the year the ordinance took effect.(2) Although I’m all for free markets, I do realize that a balance of interests needs to take place. In that balance, human health trumps the business interest of a few.

All of this being said, it’s probably better to simply put the issue to the citizens. Why not have a proposal ready for the next election so people can decide for themselves? This way politicians can breath easier (no pun intended) knowing they don’t have to make a tough decision that might create a constituent backlash, while the residents of Erie County can lay to rest the issue and have only the democratic process to blame. Just look to Arizona and Ohio who both had smoking ban proposals on their respective ballots this past election. Both state’s citizens decided cleaner air and healthier lungs were more important.

Posted by Richard at November 12, 2006 7:26 PM

Comments

Post a comment