...Will that be smoking or non-smoking?
A brouhaha recently occurred in Ohio as part of the political tactics involved in the anti-smoking campaign to ban smoking from all indoor public places in the state. The group SmokeFreeOhio is pushing for a November ballot issue that would increase regulations on second-hand smoke exposure by banning all indoor smoking in public places within Ohio. Meanwhile, SmokeLessOhio is pushing an alternative ballot issue that would also limit indoor smoking but would allow some exceptions such as bars and restaurants.
Over in Europe, Scotland implemented the more stringent version of the smoking ban back in March of this year and the early evidence suggests that pub owners are now feeling the pain. According to an industry group, drink sales are down 10% since the ban. Pubs also report fewer visitors and reduced meal sales. Some even claim they could go out of business if business stays flat.
This raises an interesting tradeoff from society's point-of-view: what price are we (society) willing to pay for increased health? Are we willing to sacrifice bar and restaurant jobs for increased health? How many jobs? How much better health?
4 comments:
This past spring, I was hired by SmokeLessOhio to recruit Ohio residents to gather signatures of registered Ohioan voters for a petition that would place the issue on the November ballot. When talking to residents of both Washington and Noble Counties, I realized that many of them are non-smokers and support some sort of smoking ban. However, they do not believe that the rights of restaurant and bar owners should be infringed upon. These residents were also concerned about the negative economic impacts felt by the hospitalilty industry. How many patrons would these businesses lose and as a result, how many jobs will be lost? No doubt that such a strict smoking ban would negatively impact the hospitalilty industry and I wonder, how many waitresses/waiters/hosts/hostesses who now support SmokeFreeOhio will lose their jobs.
In today's society, smoking is a very popular habit. With this in mind, I do not think that it would be in Ohio's best interest, financially, to completely ban smoking from all public places. Although banning smoking from public places would fit the today's trend of living a healthier lifestyle, I think that the ban would significantly hurt businesses. Yes, the environment would be much healthier, but I think that customers would stop going to bars and restaurants as much because they wouldn't be allowed to smoke. Why would someone go out to a local business with intentions to relax when they would have more leeway in their own home? The best interest for Ohio is the idea of the SmokeLessOhio group. As long as there is a place where people can enjoy a smoke-free setting, there should be no problem of having a smoking section within the same building.
In my point of view, if people want to keep health, it is quite enough to just put the alternative regulation which "would also limit indoor smoking but would allow some exceptions such as bars and restaurants". Actually, most of restaurants have divided the space to two areas, smoking and non-smoking, which, I guess, is effective to protect people from second-hand smoke. In addition, banning smoking in other public area is also necessary. However, if simply banning all indoor smoking in public places, I think maybe it will truly lead to the situation Europe faced.
Post a Comment