Recently the city I lived in and the city I moved to have passed laws that prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants. In some respects, this has worked to my advantage. My wife is allergic to the smoke and would often have to leave places when there was too much smoke. Also we have a 9 month old son who we try not to expose to smoke, so it has made our lives easier trying to find a restaurant.

Economically speaking, before the ban a number of restaurants had gone smoke free of their own accord, and had been doing good business with customers such as my family who enjoyed the smoke free environment. Bars and restaurants that allowed smoking had the business of smokers, and often of their own accord provided non-smoking areas to cater to the non-smokers. The worry was that the bar industry would suffer because smokers would discover that it was cheaper and easier to drink at home, and they wouldn't have to worry about having to step out into the cold to smoke. We are still a couple of years off of seeing what real effect this had on businesses. My guess is that it will hurt the places that were already non-smoking more than those that were forced to go smoke free.

So in my opinion, the new law will have limited to no economic impact, potentially make for a healthier population, and make my life easier. So sounds like a good thing right? Well, no.

The problem is that it is not really the governments job to tell private business how to run themselves. If a business wants to allow smoking, it should be allowed to do so. If people don't like eating in smokey places, then they won't eat at that place, and will instead opt for somewhere else to eat. If they like having a cig after their meal without having to get up, they have that right too. The market will sort out what is better, and to date, the market has shown that people like to have both options.

As it turns out this is just another step in the government trying to dig its fingers where it has no business. Whats next? banning trans fat? Oh wait, they have already started to do that. The trans fat thing actually will hurt business, as producing foods with trans fat allow it to be transported and stored better, so banning it will increase the cost of food, and potentially effect its taste adversely, and cause major changes in how food in transported and stored. Why? Because our politicians think we are too stupid to make our own decisions. In some cases they are right, but part of living is making your own mistakes.

This being said, there are some areas where smoking shouldn't be allowed. Those places are the ones where you do not have the choice of going or not going. Government buildings for example. If I had to sit in a cloud of smoke every time I had to go to the DMV to register my car I would not be happy about it, because I am required by law to get the car registered. Public transportation is another example, although you are not required to ride the bus, often economic factors make bus and subway riding a requirement.

In short, smoking bans are fine and probably advisable for government buildings where the public really has no choice to avoid. But private business and homes should be able to determine their smoking preferance on their own.

Learn more about this author, John Cane.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Should people be allowed to smoke in public places??
We want to hear your view. Write now!