Banning Smoking In Bars Is Not Only Stupid, Research Shows It Is Dangerous

STEVELACKNER.COM ^ | June 20, 2008 | Steven W. Lackner

[stevelackner]

I know there are people out there who may disagree with me on this one. But here I go anyway. Mind you this is not an issue that affects me personally as I am not a smoker.

First and foremost, because any article dealing with smoking must add in a few caveats I will take this opportunity to state what should already be obvious. I obviously believe that those addicted to smoking should try their harderst to quit. No doubt about that. You will not hear arguments from me disputing the dangers of cigarette addiction.

Now that I got that out of the way I can get to the issue at hand. Smoking bans have started becoming popular as cities decide where smokers can and cannot engage in their vice. I understand the rationale behind banning smoking in certain places of work. For example, an office setting with a bunch of cubicles is not a place for smoking. I tend to think that in today's day and age big companies would themselves ban smoking without the government forcing them to do so. In general I do not like government meddling in what is none of their business. I do not like the idea of the government telling a business owner how to run his or her business. Cigarettes are a legal and heavily taxed product (a tax which hurts working class people who smoke more than anyone else). But truthfully I will not get terribly vexed if the ban is not overly draconian, where it is banned in places that make at least some sense. I am generally opposed to smoking bans but I would nonetheless be willing to look at individual city bans and judge them independently and fairly as to whether the law is excessive.

One of the popular places for cities to ban smoking these days is bars. This is one of those bans that makes little sense to me. Bars are not health food stores. They are in the business of selling alcohol. When you enter a pub you should not be expecting for the same aura as 24 hour fitness. If a bar owner decides he wants to allow smoking in his bar I see no reason why he and his customers should not be allowed to smoke. If enough people do not like the environment created or are discomforted by the smoke then non-smoking bars should open up for them. But no one is being forced to go to a bar in the first place. The only rationale people give for this ban is that the bartenders are subjected to second-hand smoke. Truthfully, I do not think bartenders in smoking bars are dropping dead right and left from lung cancer. If they do not like the environment that many bars offer by allowing smoking then maybe bartending is not the greatest business for them. Nobody forces anyone to become a bartender. I am sure there will always be no shortage of bartenders willing to work in a smokey bar. The fact is that a bar is private property and smoking is a legal activity. Patrons can decide whether they want to support a smoking bar or not. I have always felt this way about banning smoking in bars. Recently a new study was done that validates my opinion but for a whole new reason.

The new study claims that banning smoking in bars is not only sort of stupid, it is actually dangerous. Two researchers from the University of Wisconsin named Scott Adams and Chad Cotti published their findings through the Journal of Public Economics this month. The two researchers claimed that while "using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations — smokers driving longer distances to a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks." In other words, bar smoking bans are actually dangerous. Let me now ask you one question:

What's worse, some smoke in a bar or a drunk driver plowing into another vehicle?

[trumandogz]

What's worse, some smoke in a bar or a drunk driver plowing into another vehicle?

That we live in a society were A-Holes get behind the wheel drunk.

[anymouse]

Lookie see, I can pimp my blog by combining two flamebait topics - smoking bans and drunk driving. :)

Welcome to FR. Don’t let the kitties bite. ;)

[Soliton]

The fact is that a bar is private property and smoking is a legal activity.

Sex is legal too but you can't do it in public bars. I agree that private businesses should be able to offer smoking if they want to, but their argument is that it is a work safety issue. The people who work in bars are put in danger by smoking in the same way that steel mill workers are in danger of falling objects. You could say that all work safety regulation is wrong and that if a steel mill worker doesn't want to wear a hard hat, no one is forcing him to work in a steel mill. I was so glad when they banned smoking on airplanes. How is that different than a bar?

[Caipirabob]

Bars were conceptually designed for drinking and smoking. The forced no-smoking ban is an idiocy beyond comprehension.

At the very least, the decision needs to be left to the owner.

Personally, I don't smoke, but I think we've already had a revolution to ensure certain freedoms in this nation. The right to determine what one can do on the grounds in a private business, particularly an activity that's been traditional over some 500 years (longer if you include native Americans), is one of them.

Smoking bans are an irreconcilable tyranny that too many people easily embrace. What's next? Cholesterol? Wait...

[Tamar1973]

Or maybe they’re drinking more because they can’t smoke.

[real saxophonist]

What you said. Thought similarly about this one.

[endthematrix]

"What's worse, some smoke in a bar or a drunk driver plowing into another vehicle?"

John "Smoky Bar" McCain?

[Soliton]

Bars were conceptually designed for drinking and smoking

Drinking establishments existed before smoking became popular

[R. Scott]

You’re right. We’re already so over regulated that what’s a few more restrictions?
With few exceptions (maybe high in the Rockies or way out in the desert) we no longer have ownership of “our” private property. Zoning laws restrict what we can and can not build on “our” property. Laws and regulations tell us how we must run “our” business. Restrictions tell us what we can not do in “our” homes.
What’s one more restriction? After all - it’s for our own good, and who but Government (Our Betters) knows what’s best for us?

[Steve Van Doorn]

"their argument is that it is a work safety issue."

Exactly

Since those studies have been trashed a dozen times over that argument should be done.

[R. Scott]

Drinking establishments existed before smoking became popular

Yes, “drinking establishments” have existed for thousands of years before tobacco was introduced to our society. “Bars” as we know them are a relatively recent creation.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Drinking establishments existed before smoking became popular"

since drinking and smoking different substances started thousands of years before Christ I would say that argument is rather weak.

[Soliton]

Of all the evils in the world, mostly caused by governments, this is the dumbest one to champion.

The libertarian argument, that you have a right to do anything you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, doesn’t apply. Clearly, smoking in a public enclosed space affects everyone in the space. Step outside.

[Soliton]

Since those studies have been trashed a dozen times over that argument should be done.

If you can point to a reference to public smoking of tobacco in a drinking establishment prior to 1492, I will concede the point.

[Caipirabob]

Drinking establishments existed before smoking became popular

I was trying to come up with an intelligent rebuttal but could find one - LOL!

So here's a history of smoking bans instead - cheers!

Smoking Bans - A History

When Michael Martin Introduced his uncompromising smoking ban in Ireland he claimed Ireland was the first country to introduce such comprehensive measures to prohibit the use of tobacco. Like so many other claims he makes, he is utterly wrong.

Throughout history smoking bans and prohibitions introduced by despots and totalitarian regimes have come and gone. The most recent in Europe prior to the introduction of Ireland's repressive smoking legislation were the anti smoking laws of the Third Reich, introduced by the Nazi's during their brief but devastating regime in Germany.

Despite some harsh punishments throughout the decades for those disobeying smoking bans including death, smoking and smokers have continued to thrive. Below are some of the failed smoking bans and prohibitions introduced throughout the ages including the proliferation of bans revoked after the failure of prohibition in America.

1575: Mexico:
The first recorded passing of legislation prohibiting the use of Tobacco occurs when the Roman Catholic Church passes a law which prohibits smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies
1600s: World-wide
Popes ban smoking in holy places and all places of worship. Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatens excommunication for those who smoke or take snuff in holy places.
1612: China
Royal decree forbids the use and cultivation of tobacco
1617: Mongolia
Mongolian Emperor prohibits the use of tobacco. People breaking the law face the death penalty.
1620: Japan
bans the use of tobacco
1632: America
The first recorded smoking ban in America occurs when Massachusetts introduces a ban on smoking in public places
1633: Turkey:
Sultan Murad IV bans smoking and as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking his law.
1634: Russia
Czar Alexis bans smoking. Those found guilty of a first offence risk whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offence face execution.
1634: Greece
The Greek Church bans the use of tobacco claiming tobacco smoke was responsible for intoxicating Noah..
1638: China
The use and supply of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation for those convicted
1639: America
Governor Kieft of New Amsterdam beats Bloomberg by hundreds of years and bans smoking in New Amsterdam later to become New York.
1640: Bhutan
The founder of modern Bhutan, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal introduces that countries first smoking ban outlawing the use of tobacco in government buildings.
1647: America
People are only allowed to smoke once a day and public smoking is prohibited in Connecticut
1650: Italy
Pope Innocent X's issues a decree against smoking in St Peter's, Rome
1657: Switzerland
Smoking prohibition introduced throughout Switzerland
1674: Russia
Death penalty introduced for the crime of smoking.
1683: America
First laws in America passed prohibiting smoking outdoors in Massachusetts. Philadelphia follows suit introducing fines for offenders.
1693: England
First recorded ban in England introduced prohibiting smoking in certain areas of the chambers of parliament

* Smoking bans and prohibitions became rare during the 18th and 19th century. Trade in tobacco became an important source of revenue for monarchs and leaders and tobacco bans were revoked. Even the Pope not to be left out opened a tobacco factory in 1779.

1719: France
Smoking is banned with the exception of a number of provinces.

America and Prohibition

Smoking bans and restrictions found little favour in the developing Industrial world of the 19th century. However in the USA as the century drew to a close moral crusaders outraged by the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by American people began to demand action by federal and state legislators. This culminated in an amendment to the American constitution which allowed for the prohibition of alcohol in 1920.

Believing that prohibition might be "for their own good" Americans at first seemed to reluctantly accept it. However they rapidly grew disenchanted with the oppression. The rich and powerful colluded and rubbed shoulders with gangsters in efforts to maintain the flow of alcohol. Speakeasies flourished, hip flasks became a popular symbol of defiance.

During this period the imposition of smoking bans reached a zenith with the sale of cigarettes banned in 15 states. However by 1927, Kansas became the last state to repeal it's ban on the sale of cigarettes. Other than making the crusaders feel good, prohibition had proved an unsuccessful experiment in social engineering leading to many disastrous consequences. Prohibition was eventually lifted in 1933.

1818: USA
Smoking is banned on the streets of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The mayor is fined when he becomes the first man to break the law.
1840: USA
Smoking is banned in Boston
1893: USA
Washington State introduces legislation banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes
1898: USA
Total ban on cigarettes in the state of Tennessee
1900: USA
The sale of cigarettes is now outlawed in the states of  Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota
1904: USA
A women is sent to jail for 30 days by a New York judge for smoking in front of her children.
1905: USA
Indiana introduces a total cigarette ban
1907: USA
Washington passes legislation banning the manufacture, sale, exchange or giving away cigarettes, cigarette paper or wrappers
1914: USA
Smoking banned in the US Senate
1922: USA
15 States now have laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession and use of cigarettes

Smoking Bans and the Third Reich

Hitler was a fervent anti smoker and a crusader for the anti-smoking cause. He personally funded research into the dangers of smoking and little wonder those results given the nature of his regime tended to support his assertions that smoking was an evil the Aryan race must be rid of. Many of the studies carried out during the Third Reich are the basis for the arguments put forward today by those seeking the imposition of repressive smoking bans.

Hitler once stated that tobacco was "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man" Under the Nazi's the Bureau Against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco was established in 1939 followed in 1942 by the Institute for the Struggle against the dangers of Tobacco. Nazi's were the first to coin the term "passive smoking"

Under the Nazi regime the German people had imposed on them the most comprehensive set of tobacco regulations and restrictions seen in any modern nation to that date. Hitler himself took particular interest in this area often personally overseeing the drafting and implementation of anti smoking policy.

Bans And Restrictions in Nazi Germany

• The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938.
• The German Post office introduced.it's own ban
• Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes.
• The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939
• SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty in 1939
• Hermann Goering's bans soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and while taking rest periods.
• Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.
• Smoking was banned in air raid shelters. Some provided separate rooms for smokers
• Tobacco coupons were denied to any woman who was pregnant
• Blanket smoking bans were introduced in many cafes, bars and restaurants
• Women below the age of 25 were banned from smoking
• Restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to all female customers
• In July 1943 it became illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.
• Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944. This initiative coming from Hitler himself,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.

1973: America
Arizona becomes the first state in the current wave of smoking bans to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places

[Steve Van Doorn]

Bath houses and Inn’s is what they used to gather thousands of years ago. So what if they have less function with the name change.

[Soliton]

Why do you suppose so many countries have banned it so many times?

I suggest it was because it was offensive to others. They have also banned spitting on the sidewalk and letting your dog take a dump in my yard.

[Steve Van Doorn]

”If you can point to a reference to public smoking of tobacco in a drinking establishment prior to 1492, I will concede the point.”

Since marijuana was the preferred smoking substance before tobacco and has a much greater effect on those around them in Inns, bathhouses and public houses. I will accept your concession.

[Soliton]

In walks the pothead. Hey man, dudes were gettin’ high in bars 2000 years ago man.