Smoking ban an economic issue

Smoking ban an economic issue
Published: February 27, 2008

TAHLEQUAH DAILY PRESS (TAHLEQUAH, Okla.)
The data can’t be disputed: Oklahoma has one of the highest smoking rates of any state, and one of the worst health records. And some of the health problems have been caused by smoking.

So when state legislators in 2003 decided to severely limit the number of public places in which smoking would be permitted, even most hard-core smokers bedrudgingly agreed it was a good move. Since non-smokers do outnumber smokers, even in Oklahoma, it’s only right that restaurants and most public places bow to the majority.

But a Senate committee’s decision last week to extend the 2003 ban to bars and the few other places where Okies can still light up might be taking things a bit too far. Especially when it comes to a full-bore, outright ban on smoking in all restaurants.

When the original ban went into effect, restaurants were allowed to serve smoking customers if they built separate facilities to accommodate them. A number of family-owned cafes and truck stops, especially in rural parts of the state, invested thousands of dollars to build these smoking rooms. And now, the owners are being told they have until 2013 to go completely smoke free. The same message is being sent to owners of bars and taverns, who under the old rules could also allow smoking. Though they didn’t necessarily have to do so, many entrepreneurs also dropped thousands of dollars in state-of-the-art ventilation systems.

Sen. David Myers, R-Ponca City, who sponsored the legislation, cited the dangers of secondhand smoke to workers and others who enter restaurant smoking rooms and work in bars and taverns. Of course, Myers’ facts are correct, but what he did not mention is that the vast majority of people who patronize or work in such establishments choose to do so – and most of them are smokers.

It’s not quite the same scenario as it was before, when Oklahomans who wanted to dine in nearly any restaurant had to put up with smokers nearby.

Now there are so few restaurants that allow smoking, one has to wonder why a non-smoker would insist upon eating in such a place, rather than choose one of the many presumably healthier joints.

Some folks might also point out the paradox of banning smoking in a bar, where excessive consumption of alcohol is potentially far more hazardous to public health – at least in the short term – than a cloud of cigarette smoke.

Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, also had a good point when he said the measure went too far, since tobacco is a legal substance. Until tobacco use is banned altogether, one might reason, how can it be – well, banned altogether?

The main problem with the more restrictive ban, however, isn’t so much its intrusive nature, but its lack of consideration for business owners who spent so much money trying to get in line with the 2003 law.

Should some consideration be given to them and their customers? Is it fair to ask restaurant owners who have already spent a healthy chunk to essentially throw all that equipment out the window?

Who will really benefit from the smoking ban? According to some lawmakers, it's the Indian casinos, which do not have to adhere to the smoking ban and can thus welcome diners, gamblers and drinkers – cigarettes in tow - with open arms. That’s good news for casinos, but what about other business owners?

Legislators need to take another look at this measure. Health may be an issue, yes, but so is economics. At least the people should be able to vote on it.

Tahlequah (Okla.) Daily Press