Anti-smoking advocates may not know much about the science, economics, or social justice of their neoprohibitionist campaign, but they sure do know how to hurl insults at those who do.
In response to a recent opinion piece of mine that ran in the Chicago Tribune, we received an email from “Harry” in Milwaukee saying if Bast “promises not to smoke within ten feet of me, I promise not to poop on his salad bowl while he’s eating.” Only he didn’t say “poop.”
Gee, thanks.
Once or twice a year I devote a Heartlander essay to defending smokers. I know some readers don’t like it when I do this, but if you care about fair taxation, tort reform and the Rule of Law, the rise of the Nanny State, and the use of junk science in public policy, you just can’t look the other way when smoker abuse occurs.
(For those of you concerned for my health, allow me to report that I smoke cigars, not cigarettes, and due to the winter cold I’m down to fewer than one a week. The wine and cheese consumed by typical anti-smoking activists probably pose a greater threat to their health than my occasional smoking does to mine.)
No More Chicago Fire?
On January 7, the City Council of Chicago held a hearing on proposed legislation to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. For the better part of a day, a stream of restaurateurs, bar owners and managers, waiters and waitresses, experts on ventilation, community leaders, and at least one public health expert (Michael Fumento, whom I invited) testified that a ban is unwanted, unnecessary, would destroy jobs and hurt tourism, and would violate rights.
When it was over, Ald. Ed Smith, chairman of the Health Committee, told the Chicago Tribune, “there was nothing said in the hearing today that we had not heard all along. It’s the same old soup just warmed over.”
Ald. Smith apparently slept through some pretty compelling testimony. Here’s a brief reprise.
Little Public Support
The general public does not support smoking bans in restaurants. According to a 2001 Gallup poll, 52 percent of survey respondents believe restaurants should set aside space for smokers, while 44 percent support a total ban. Support for a ban would have been even lower if respondents were informed that bans on smoking could cause the loss of jobs or closure of small businesses, or that all restaurants already make accommodations for smokers.
Most seats in most restaurants are already designated nonsmoking. Current statutes in Chicago (and most towns and cities nationwide) require one-third of seats in restaurants to be designated nonsmoking. Most restaurants set aside more, and a growing number are entirely nonsmoking. At least half of all seats in Chicago restaurants are already reserved for nonsmokers. Most restaurants connected to bars have invested heavily in ventilation and air cleaning systems to ensure smoke doesn’t travel from the bar to the restaurant.
Nonsmokers who visit restaurants and bars are not complaining. The Public Health Department of the City of Chicago received just 16 complaints about cigarette smoke in restaurants and bars in 2001. If nonsmokers are dissatisfied with current accommodations, why aren’t they complaining?
Lost Jobs
A smoking ban would have a severe negative effect on local businesses. According to restaurant and bar owners, smokers spend more, on average, than nonsmokers on alcohol, food, and tips. Consequently, a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars would reduce business and sales by 50 percent or more. Chicago-area restaurants, bars, and hotels employ more than 118,000 people (with wages of more than $1.85 billion). A smoking ban means fewer jobs, less tourism business, and the loss of millions of dollars in sales and property taxes.
Smoking bans elsewhere have reduced employment in restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. A survey of owners and managers of California restaurants, bars, and nightclubs affected by that state’s smoking ban found 59 percent experienced a decrease in business since the ban. The average decline in sales was 26 percent. Nearly 30 percent reported laying off employees or cutting hours or shifts. From 1994 to 1999, during a time when the rest of California’s economy was booming, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business.
Violating Rights
Bar and restaurant owners should be allowed to make the right decisions. No one is forced to eat or work at establishments that allow smoking. Bars and restaurants are privately owned businesses that earn a profit by giving customers what they want. The owners of these establishments are in the best position to know what their customers want and how to deliver it. Since they own the property, their right to set the rules of conduct concerning guests should be respected.
No Public Health Benefit
The threat of secondhand smoke has been greatly exaggerated. Claims that secondhand smoke causes as many as 65,000 early deaths in the U.S. each year have been widely debunked as “junk science.” Studies by the Congressional Research Service, World Health Organization, and U.S. Department of Energy all failed to find secondhand smoke to be a significant health risk. In 1998, a U.S. District Court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to classify secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen.
Smoking bans move noisy and potentially dangerous crowds onto sidewalks. Smokers go outside when bars and nightclubs disallow smoking inside, resulting in noise and activity that can annoy and even endanger neighborhood residents. Drinking and smoking on sidewalks is likely to be louder and more often lead to violence, crime, or injury-causing accidents than drinking and smoking inside a privately owned establishment.
Smokers Don’t Deserve This
Yes, long-term heavy smoking is hazardous to your health. But surveys of smokers show they over-estimate the actual risk. They continue to smoke because they decide the enjoyment is worth the risk, just as long-distance runners, bicyclists, race car drivers, and countless other pursuers of pleasure willingly accept risk.
Smokers already pay more, through taxes, than the cost their habits impose on the rest of society. The cost to society of smoking has been ridiculously exaggerated. Current excise taxes paid on cigarettes exceed the net medical expenses caused by smoking. (Grossly inflated figures circulated by the Centers for Disease Control assume smokers would live forever and never need medical care if they didn’t smoke!) Since the average smoker lives a shorter life than the average nonsmoker, smokers cost the rest of society less in nursing home and pension costs.
Why Wage War on Smokers?
Why is Chicago’s City Council debating a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants when the public doesn’t want it, the public health benefits would be nonexistent, and the costs in terms of jobs and our rights would be so heavy? Part of the answer lies in the corps of tax-financed professional anti-taxpayer activists. Lobbying for this legislation is how they earn a paycheck.
But I think there’s another reason. There are far more bars and restaurants in Chicago than there are cops to enforce a smoking ban. Deciding which establishments to ticket would provide many opportunities for corruption, favoritism, and harassment. I think Chicago’s crafty aldermen are looking for another way to shake down bar and restaurant owners, what we Chicagoans call “payola.”
With 645 murders in 2002, Chicago barely missed repeating its title as “murder capital of the U.S.” Diverting scarce law enforcement resources from fighting real crime to harassing smokers just so some alderman can line his pocket with bribes is disgusting, irresponsible, and could be downright deadly.
And that’s why I write about smokers’ rights.
