Yes

by Sherry Rindt

Created on: July 12, 2007   Last Updated: December 09, 2011

The question presented in this debate is rather broad - should smoking be allowed in public places?

The answer depends; first, on the definition of "public places," and secondly on what we are willing to give up if smoking is banned in all public places?

In 1964 when the Surgeon General first warned against tobacco use, smoking was so socially acceptable that health care facilities provided ashtrays in the waiting rooms, schools provided smoking lounges for teachers, and office workers puffed at their desks. And that year the federal government took in $3 billion in tobacco tax revenue. State, county and city governments were also making a haul from tobacco sales.

In the years that followed - without municipal, county or statewide smoking bans - the ashtrays were voluntarily removed from the health care centers. The smoking lounges disappeared in the schools. By 1999 most offices, warehouses, factories, and retail stores in this country were smoke free.

And, by 1999 the number of adult smokers in the United States had dropped from over 50 percent to fewer than 30 percent. Meanwhile, the federal government's chunk of the tobacco pie had quadrupled to $13.8 billion. So, even as smoking began to lose social appeal, the government became more dependent on tobacco tax revenue.

Today, nonsmokers outnumber smokers two-to-one. This decline is largely the result of personal choices, rather than government action.

Discrimination against smokers has become widely popular, due in part to the tremendous influence of insurance companies. Employers that provide health insurance, feel justified in discriminating against smokers seeking employment. A growing number of housing developments and lodging facilities also prohibit smoking, whether or not it is allowed by local ordinance, again because of insurance industry influence.

Now let's take a look at what happens when a community or a state adopts a ban that prohibits smoking in public places that are privately owned. The bans have almost no impact on fast food chains such as McDonalds, because fast food places have been largely smoke free for more than a decade. Nor do they have significant impact on commercial stores, offices, or industrial facilities, for the same reason.

For the most part it is only smaller, independently owned bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys that continue to allow smoking inside the business. Although these Mom and Pop business operators rarely gain the attention of Wall Street, they make a substantial contribution to our country's economy. As many as 80 percent of all new jobs created in this country are born of Mom and Pop business ventures. Collectively, the little Mom and Pop ventures pump billions of dollars into our national economy every year by purchasing products and services, paying employees, and paying taxes.

This brings us to the first of my initial questions: What is the definition of a public place?

I searched Webster's Dictionary in hope of finding a definitive answer, but the definition of "public" depends on the application. Generally speaking, if a place is owned by and supported by the taxpayers, it is certainly a "public place" because all members of the community may have the need or desire to enter that place. But, is an establishment that is privately owned really a public place? That business does not exist to meet a public need. It exists to provide the owners with income. The economic perks of that business are just that - perks to the rest of the community. If that business ceases to be profitable, the owner will close his/her doors and the local community loses the perks.

Which brings us to the second question: How much are we willing to give up?

The reports presented by the so-called anti-tobacco lobby regarding the "success" of smoking bans are often misleading. These reports almost always focus on larger, more economically diverse communities. Of course a smoking ban is not terribly economically devastating in Boston. Boston is a large metropolitan area, blessed with universities, malls, tons of historical establishments, government offices, airports, great lodging facilities, and a good mix of corporately owned and privately owned businesses. When a small, neighborhood bar or restaurant goes out of business in Boston, there is a corporate developer somewhere in the wings, just waiting to purchase the property for a redevelopment plan that is often partially subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

But, the reports rarely look at the economic impact of smoking bans on small, rural communities. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a study that has examined the economic impact of a smoking ban on small, rural communities. Take a drive through Small Town America. Chances are you will see a lot of vacant buildings that used to be grocery stores, shoe stores, clothing stores, or drug stores. These businesses are closed because a Wal-Mart Super Center, or some other large, corporate entity moved into the general area and under-priced the Mom and Pops out of business. But, here in Small Town America, there aren't developers lining up waiting to turn that blighted block into a shopping mall or an office complex.

Here, in Small Town America when a business closes due to financial failure, the property often deteriorates and becomes a burden on the municipal tax roles.

Smoking bans do cause financial failure for many small businesses because contrary to the anti-tobacco lobby's promise of "increased revenues", the smokers will stay home, and the non-smokers will not automatically flock to the door of that dingy little bar or cafe. Small, independent businesses do not have the financial resources of their corporate counterparts. They can not afford to give away product or purchase major advertising to rebuild their customer base. So, in the wake of a smoking ban, businesses that once depended on both the smoking and nonsmoking customer base, lose patronage and revenue.

And the punitive impact is not limited to the smoking allowed business. Small town bars that are smoke free are usually successful because they are unique in the community. Their smoke free status is the hook that causes their customers to drive a little farther to patronize that business. But, when a smoking ban sets in, that business loses its unique factor. The customer that was driving the extra distance strictly for the smoke free environment has other options closer to home.

The greatest irony of all is that even while promoting smoking bans, the federal government and many state governments remain dependent on tobacco tax revenue and the other residual revenues, such as licensing fees, to fund healthcare initiatives. But, while the tobacco tax revenues will continue to increase, local municipalities and states will lose other revenue as food and beverage sales decline, businesses close, and jobs are lost.

Nonsmokers have options. It is easier to find a smoke free employer, than a smoking allowed employer. It is easier to find a smoke free restaurant, than a smoking allowed restaurant. If we leave things alone, the market place will eventually increase the number of nonsmoking establishments, even in Small Town America. But, if we include privately owned small businesses in the definition of "public places" and attempt to prematurely eliminate smoking in areas typically reserved for adult recreational gathering, the long-term economic impact could be devastating.

So, I say no. Smoking should not be banned in all public places. Private business owners should have the option of allowing their customers to smoke. The product is legal, the choice is personal, and small business owners should not be required by law to discriminate against a customer that has made the personal choice to use a legal product that provides billions of dollars in revenue to the local, state and federal governments.

Learn more about this author, Sherry Rindt.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.