Yeah, smoking is awful, but let the market decide
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
May 11, 2000
I am in sympathy with Greg Gilbert’s and others desire to have smoke free restaurants. Second hand smoke does not make for a pleasant dining or drinking experience. Many no-smoking areas in restaurants are a joke. How can you have a no-smoking table next to a smoking table or even in the same room?
I’ve been at Hacienda del Sol where one smoker three tables away contaminated the whole room. I always asked to be seated in the back room at Louis’ on London road because the smoke from half of the front room contaminates the whole room. During a long wait for a table at Blackwoods I didn’t bother to get drinks from the smoke-filled bar. And I only stop at Hugo’s in Brimson if I’m sure I’ll be the only one at the bar.
I’ve talked to servers who detest working in the smoking areas. They say they have to wash their hair when they get home so they can stand themselves. And I’ve talked to owners who would rather operate as non-smoking but think they will see less business if they do.
With a no-smoking ordinance, many restaurant owners and employees will be very pleased. It will level the playing field for them. On the other hand, some restaurant owners who feel strongly that a no-smoking ordinance is an intrusion into the operation of their businesses will wink at patrons who smoke in their establishments. And smokers who feel strongly about their “right” to smoke will gravitate towards those establishments.
How much effort and money will the city be willing to expend to ensure the ordinance is obeyed uniformly? Even if the city were willing to make a big effort to expend the effort, could not those resources be better used elsewhere, say on sidewalks and alleys? Also enforcement would work in some quarters to further increase disrespect and distrust of government. This in turn further erodes our ability to have a civil society.
It may take a bit longer, but a private anti-smoking campaign may be more successful and far cheaper than a city ordinance. A good start is the full page ad sponsored by the Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco Coalition on the back cover of the previous issue of the Northland Reader.
Other headlines for ads besides “Secondhand Smoke is Poisoning Our Children” could be “If Restaurants Take Pride in Their Food, Why Do They Let Smokers Contaminate It?” or “The Wine’s Bouquet Was Magnificient But the Air Was Foul Indeed ”.
Anti-smoking organizations could publish lists of smoke-free restaurants or even ratings on how truly “smoke-free” no-smoking sections are. They could also provide window signs for no-smoking restaurants that are a bit more inviting than “No Smoking” such as “We Value Our Food, Please Don’t Smoke.”
And we can all let management know what we think of their environment. If you are unhappy with the smoke in a restaurant, tell the manager. If you are pleased that a restaurant has a no smoking policy, tell the manager. And be sure to go back as often as you can.
If you don’t think it will work, consider all the fast food restaurants that are now smoke free. It was customers that got them to change, not ordinances. Now let’s work on the better restaurants.
If you think about it, market forces can provide solutions to some other problems that currently are going through courts or legislatures. Market action could provide solutions more quickly and cheaply than litigation and laws.
Postscript: 2017-11-02
Well, it seems we’ve had a combination of market forces and ordinances. It is really nice to not even worry about smoke, except possibly on a patio. And it’s great to walk into buildings without passing a phalanx of smokers.
Now if we can only get smokers to pay attention to the no smoking signs at bus stops. I’ve never had the nerve to ask smokers if I didn’t make them smoke why are they making me smoke!
