Letter to the editor - Bar/restaurant smoking ban

[malkusm]

Alright guys, so I picked up a copy of the campus newspaper today and one of the editorials is titled "Smoking ban in bars and restaurants is beneficial to public". The article goes on to say that "Banning smoking in restaurants and bars is ultimately a general standard of living issue," arguing that it detracts from customers' experiences at the establishment. It also says, without a cited source, that "Restaurant management would also prefer a ban on smoking," but fears a loss of their customer base.

Obviously, there are more holes in this article than Swiss cheese....but I would like a little help in organizing all of the rebuttals to write a "Letter to the Editor" in response, which would be published in tomorrow's paper. Any help would be appreciated.

Here's the online version of the article as a reference:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2009/01/21/editorial__smoking_ban_in_bars_and_restaurants_is_ beneficial_to_public

So far, here are my main points of emphasis (I haven't yet started writing the letter):

1) Property rights for bar/restaurant owners. The government has as much right to tell a bar/restaurant owner what they can allow in their establishment as they do to tell a home owner what they can do in their own home.

2) Personal choice. Allowing the owner of a bar or restaurant to set the rules regarding smoking means there are more choices for people in society - smokers can go to places that allow it, and those who are offended by it can spend their money at one that doesn't. This choice allows the maximum number of people to have a satisfying option.

3) Economics. If a restaurant owner determined that they would make more money by banning smoking, they would do it. Some have done so, tailoring themselves to the non-smoking crowd with great success. A blanket ban on smoking would greatly reduce economic efficiency in the state.

4) The role of government. Government has no role in determining what is a "health issue." Those who deem it a health issue have the right to take their business elsewhere. When government gets involved in determining what is a "health issue," where does it stop? Should we set an age limit on soda and candy due to the childhood obesity crisis?

Not all of this is fleshed out yet....so let me know what you think :)

[Dave]

I've been trying to get around to responding to this...

Google "Iowa smoking ban" for insight on how this nonsense is done. Iowa banned smoking last year in all restaurants, bars, etc. - EXCEPT for the casinos, some of which are government-owned and all of which pay a lot of money to governments and/or politicians. As a result, private establishments have lost business to the casinos that feed the government. How's that for government conceit? Even people I know who are FOR the smoking ban are outraged by the exemptions.

Know this: They pull off these smoking bans by making it a workers' rights issue - a workplace safety issue. i.e. Nobody should have to go to work in a smoke-filled establishment and endanger their health. People shouldn't have to go to work and breathe second-hand smoke. They compare it to other workplace safety rules that employers have to follow and say this should be no different. This is how they get it passed.

[Epic]

Check the state constitution. See if the regulation is allowed...

Also, a good argument on issues such as this is to point out that because the right of a private restaurant owner to set smoking rules was NOT GIVEN by government, and thus cannot be taken away by government.

[dannno]

Question:

Are bars/restaurants currently required to have a smoking section?

If a restaurant really wanted a smoking ban, it seems like they could already do it, unless government intervention has forced restaurants to accept smokers, which also goes against the property rights of the establishment.