Instead of taking the draconian measure of banning smoking completely in public places, why not regulate it the same way we regulate the sale of liquor: introduce only a limited number of smoking licenses that bar/restaurant owners must buy.
If we are worried about the negative effects on employees, we could mandate higher-than-market salaries at these establishments. After all, there are many jobs with higher salaries that offset possible health risks, so why should bartending be any different? As long as it's only a fraction of all bars we won't be forcing anyone to work there.
This would allow a compromise between the public health problem of smoking and the curtailment of freedom under the current bans.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Doesn't address the employees of the establishment though.
Although I'm not a smoker and despise having to sit in a smokey restaurant or bar, I agree with this concept. Banning smoking on a city or county level is over-the-top. If a restaurant or bar wishes to allow their customers to smoke, they should have that right. After all, its their business and they should be able to serve the customers the way they wish. And I always have the option of going across the street to a non-smoking establishment.
Our illustrious City Council banned smoking in restaurants about 5 years ago. The ordinance they passed more or less said that if a business gained more than 50% of their income from alchol they were exempt from the ordinance. So now the borderline pubs are forced to promote beer & booze over nachos & cheese curds. So much for promoting public health issues.
So we lost some coffee-houses (where the under 21 crowd could hang out) and gained more than a few taverns that serve coffee.(That the under 21 crowd can't go.)
In my mind market forces should be the deciding factor. If there is a large enough of a crowd wanting no smoking someone will have the insight to open a no smoking tavern and restaurant.
These same market forces explain why the city I live in has only one "gay & lesbian oriented" bar. There simply isn't enough market to support more than one. There has been more than one but eventually the better bar prevails.
The non-smoking crowd said they would frequent restaurants more often if they weren't forced to breathe all that smoke when they flim-flammed the Council into enacting the ordinance. They haven't exactly delivered. Might be there were only a few vocal anti-smokers that got all the attention of the Council.
And for the record; I am an ex-smoker. Quit after 17 years because I thought a pack of cigs was overpriced. I still go to all the same places I used to go prior to quitting. And one of them recently became a "no smoking" tavern.
Go figure . . .