Chicago: If you can't take the smoke, get out of the bar

Chicago Flame ^ | 10-03-05 | Michaelia Fosses

[SheLion]

This week, supporters of a smoking ban in Chicago's restaurants will rally in the Federal Plaza at noon in anticipation of a vote on the Chicago Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. They will effectively remove smoking from all public places.

This ordinance is a more comprehensive form of the current ordinance, which only bans smoking in public places except for designated smoking areas. The new Chicago Clean Indoor Air Ordinance 2005 by Alderman Ed Smith of Ward 28, bans it completely from all public places.

Any adult that has lived in the public sphere for at least part of his/her life knows that smoking can be harmful to his/her health. And as an adult, a person has the right to ingest potentially harm-inducing substances into their body. McDonald's, anyone?

But Smoke-Free Chicago, the major campaign with TV commercials, ads on city buses and in newspapers, takes another angle. The ads, which, for the most part, depict very clean-cut, youthful men and women who are part of the service industry, (servers, hosts, and bartenders) telling their stories about how they deserve a smoke-free workplace just like many of the service industry workers in already smoke-free cities. The people depicted in the ads usually say that they have not smoked ever in their lives, but now are suffering the consequences of working in a smoke filled area.

The problem here is that Smoke-Free Chicago is denying the existence of choice. Choice, selection, free will, is the major discerning factor in this scenario. If a person does not want to work with in a potentially unsafe situation, then he/she could find another job or occupation. A person with a phobia of heights would not actively seek out a position as a roofer, they would find a job more suited to their needs. Or a server could seek employment at an already smoke-free restaurant or bar, since as it stands right now, owners of restaurants and bars can make the decision whether to allow smoking inside their establishments.

This decision, the choice of restaurants owners, is the key in understanding this situation. In this capitalist, free enterprise economy, restaurant and bar owners already have the choice of making a restaurant smoke-free. The logical conclusion here is that if a restaurant or bar owner was insistent that his/her establishment be smoke-free, it already would be, regardless of a law that would force the issue.

We all know that there are some things in the world that can harm us, physically, emotionally, or otherwise. A logical person would follow the path of harm reduction, knowing that if there is something happening at a place that he/she did not agree with, he/she would avoid that place.

Regardless, one of the most beautiful things about living in this country is the freedom of choice to which we are entitled. What is coming next for bars, if the smoking ban passes? No drinking? We tried that once already. Remember how great that turned out to be?

[absolootezer0]

You are talking about a level playing field. And you are also saying that all business's must be made smoke free so this one business doesn't loose money. Well, excuse me. But all the rest that go non smoking will also lose a lot of revenue. We just don't "go there anymore."

i'm saying that that's what the owners were saying. they were making the point that you can't just make one small area smoke free. many of them fight against statewide bans as well because they don't want to lose the business. as a smoker and a bartender i know that many would not bother coming to the bars anymore if they couldn't smoke.
also what must be considered is the impact to HVAC companies. if all public places went smoke free how much business would be lost for them if they lose an entire product line that they can sell, install and service?
going to non-smoking would be bad for all involved, even the whiney people who would get their way, who like to goto bars would be negatively impacted. higher prices, smaller inventories, and fewer patrons would make their trip to the bar less fun.

[Garnet Dawn]

Hi, I was published in the University of IL's Newspaper last week and I never knew it......
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagoflame.com/media/paper519/news/2005/10/17/Opinions/Letters.To.The.Editor-1022176.shtml

A fair playing field
Michaelia Fosses' editorial, "If you can't take the smoke get out of the bar" was excellent. In addition, the restaurateurs in Chicago who are promoting a smoking ban because they are already smoke-free and claim business is booming, will loose their competitive advantage if a city-wide hospitality smoking ban becomes reality. Chicago will loose overall local resident business, tourist trade and conventions till these clueless entrepreneurs find their profits nose-diving, along with all the other restaurants and bars in the city. The Health Industry lobby's next approach will have to be to propose a state-wide smoking ban. Can't Chicago smoke-free proponents read the news and learn from recent New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota hospitality tragedies from smoking bans? Level playing field arguments clearly support why governmental regulation of smoking policies in the hospitality industry do not work.

[SheLion]

going to non-smoking would be bad for all involved, even the whiney people who would get their way, who like to goto bars would be negatively impacted. higher prices, smaller inventories, and fewer patrons would make their trip to the bar less fun.

Right!  And people forget about the 'trickle down effect.'  Loss of revenue not only affects the business, but all the vendors that supply that business as well.  From linens to beer and soft drinks, etc.  If the revenue isn't there, then the business has no need to keep stocking up.  The smoking bans are choking our economy.

[SheLion]

Hi, I was published in the University of IL's Newspaper last week and I never knew it......

Good going Garnet! Excellent commentary!

[Rakkasan1]

puff bump

[Mears]

One of the problems with the ban in an area near me (Massachusetts) is the people that live near the bar are complaining about the folks hanging around outside smoking.

Proof of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[SheLion]

One of the problems with the ban in an area near me (Massachusetts) is the people that live near the bar are complaining about the folks hanging around outside smoking.

Sure.  Next they will be screaming about the butts laying around on the ground because the business won't provide an outside receptacle for the smokers.  Anything to cast us in a nasty light!

[Cementjungle]

They should ban all harmfull substances. This will include red meat, alcohol, chocolate, caffeine, and water (a lab rat died after being force-fed 273 gallons of water).

What happened to the USA where people minded their own business and didn't feel the need to regulate what everyone else does?

*sigh*

[supercat]

Nanny government didn't put blood, sweat and tears into a business. Yet, they are allowed to go in and dictate how the owner is to run it? Totally disgusting.

Why do bar owners spend many thousands of dollars on smoke eaters? If smoking bans were good for business, you'd think the bar owners would simply ban smoking and save the money they'd no longer have to spend on air filters and such.

Perhaps the business owners know what the Smoke Nazis refuse to admit: that smoking bans cost THOUSANDS of dollars in revenue. And unlike the Smoke Nazis, they're willing to put their money where their mouth is.