Smoking ban is a good idea
It’s a move sure to peeve smokers and business owners who detest more government regulation, but Pennsylvania’s recently enacted smoking ban has more has more upside than down. The bottom line is that those who do not smoke should not be exposed to second-hand smoke and its associated health risks. In 90 days or so, Pennsylvania becomes the 33rd state to enact some sort of smoking ban. That should tell you something about where this debate is headed. It’s not a matter of intruding on someone’s right to smoke, as much as protecting the health of those who do not. In fact, many Pennsylvania restaurants, hotels and other businesses have voluntarily gone smoke-free in recent years, without such a legal ban.
Gov. Ed Rendell has pushed for this legislation, on the basis that it will ultimately curb health care costs. That seems logical, but we’ll have to wait for an empirical assessment in coming years to see how large those savings actually are.
For certain, the ban that will keep people from lighting up in most bars, restaurants, work places and other areas is bound to generate vocal dissent. Especially when first-time violators could get a fine of up to $250; repeat offenders could get socked with a $1,000 fine.
No doubt smokers and some business owners – particularly those in the bar business – will feel that the ban is an unwarranted intrusion on their personal freedom, either to smoke as they wish or to run their establishment as they see fit.
But the reality is that second-hand smoke has been linked to numerous diseases, including cancer, and it’s not fair to subject others to the possible bad effects of anyone’s habit. It’s sensible that places such as restaurants, office buildings, theaters and arenas should become smoke-free environments.
But, as is possible in places like Pennsylvania, the ban really isn’t a complete ban. There are plenty of exemptions, including bars that derive 20 percent or less of their income from food orders, casinos, private clubs, nursing homes, tobacco-related businesses, and volunteer fire, ambulance and rescue squads.
So there are many smoking constituencies, if you will, that earned a loophole from the ban. Perhaps the most difficult to comprehend, from a health perspective, involves nursing homes, where the argument was that elderly residents who are smokers may be too frail to walk outside to light up.
Chances are good that most businesses will adjust to this change, and that after an initial backlash things will settle down, both in temperament and cash flow. In the long run, though, making indoor air cleaner is a good idea.