An Analysis of the Topic of the Public Smoking Banned

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals. Of those chemicals, 40 of them have been proven to cause cancer (SWAT). Its no wonder why a bill is being passed to ban smoking in all public places. However, this will have the greatest effect on restaurants across the nation. The next great smoking debate will decide whether you can puff in restaurants. In a democracy, like the one we live in, the majority rules, while trying to respect the rights of the minority. In this case, the minority being smokers, seem to have more rights than the majority.

But the majority has taken it into their own hands and passed a bill to ban smoking in all public places. The ban would only apply to the common areas of the restaurants, especially if the dining areas were enclosed and had a separate entrance. Smoking, however, might be prohibited in a lobby if a nearby restaurant wasn't enclosed (Czurak).

Of course, there will always be holes or vagueness in passing bills and making rules.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: Cigarette Smoking

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It is uncertain whether the bill would allow smoking on open-air decks and patios, and its not clear whether anyone could light up on an outdoor deck that was screened in the summer and heated in the winter (Czurak). This is because the bill says no smoking in all public areas. The bill does exempt private clubs, like those at golf courses, from the ban. Some restaurants could get away with charging a daily membership fee instead of charging for meals to keep smoking in that restaurant, but only if it doesn't serve alcohol.

It would be extremely difficult for many restaurants to convert to clubs if they had liquor licenses.

Those in favor of banning smoking completely are the obvious anti-smoking groups such as the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and American Cancer Society. These groups have been fighting this controversy since 1977 when restaurants and smokers first came together. That was when restaurants were considering whether or not they should be required to have separate areas for nonsmokers (Sheraton). Such organizations thought that separated sections should be required by law, and many would extend such a law to ban smoking completely in restaurants and all public places. That was then and they got their separated sections- it is now time to fight for complete prohibition of smoking, especially since smoking is a newly recognized cause of sudden infant death syndrome, and because of personal annoyance with having to put up with cigarette smoke.

In addition to those in favor of the ban, there are also those who are completely against it. These people are mostly business owners in which they are afraid that nonsmoking will take away from their business. Of course, those who smoke are also against this bill. From their perspective, they believe its within governments realm to ban smoking on their premises. But now the government wants to ban the use of a legal product on what is private property that is open to the public.

They believe that the owners of that property and the operators of those establishments should make the decision as to whether or not they will allow patrons to smoke or not. Recent tobacco suits were just settled in that states received large chunks of money and the companies get guaranteed immunity from state lawsuits (Tubbesing). And now that this ban has surfaced, people are getting frustrated. Businesses are announcing that they will file lawsuits that will break the bank if this public smoking ban gets passed.

Restaurants that have already enforced the ban have quite a bit to say about the issue. The ones that have decided to keep a separate smoking area have had to install superior air conditioning so that the place has proper filtration from the cigarette smoke. Jack Watters spent $100,000 to funnel smoke form his Pembina Highway billiard hall. And Bryan Fenske and his partners threw a whopping $250,000 last year into a heating, ventilation and air conditioning unit he claims has made smoke virtually disappear form his Mezzo nightclub (Romaniuk). Bans similar to this one have already taken effect in places around the world such as Austria, Germany, and Spain.

There are also restaurants that have accepted the ban in its entirety. Restaurant owners are beginning to understand that people want to breathe while they are eating. Plus, employees are entitled to a job that does not damage their health (Health/Tobacco). They are realizing that since they are in the people business, they should be making people happy, which would increase their business. In Massachusetts, studies have proven that the smoke free ordinances have not effected any restaurant revenue (Martin). Californias statute is nearly two years old, and the California Lung Association flaunts the states regulations as proof that restaurants and even bars wont face economic decline when smoking is banned (Hoogeveen).

Smokers, who have gone to restaurants before that allowed them to smoke, will still go to the restaurant when it is forbidden. Why? Because they go there for the food, the social hours, the location, or simply the convenience of not cooking a meal themselves. As for the nonsmokers, they will continue to visit a restaurant because the ban was a benefit on their side. Other nonsmokers that didn't eat there before will also want to try it out now because they don't have to deal with smoke while they try to eat. Thus, increasing the business for that particular restaurant.

In conclusion, a smoking ban has arrived and everyone has to learn to deal with it. The lines are drawn and you can't erase them. Why should people have to risk their own health when they walk into a public building and smell smoke? Studies show that smokers lose seven minutes off of their life every time they smoke a cigarette, and nonsmokers lose three minutes every time that they inhale second hand smoke (SWAT). Ultimately, this ban is a benefit for everyone.

Smoking has been proven to cause many diseases and this ban could only help to reduce that statistic. Customers do not walk out of a restaurant because it had no smoking area; they walk out because they are unsatisfied. Restaurants need not look at this ban as something that could put them out of business. It all depends on how they handle it so it could bring in more revenue in the future than not having the ban brought in the past.