now that's how you take care of smoking in public!
From David Mann in the Jeff/NA News-Tribune, news of a voluntary solution to the public smoking problem...
It was around lunchtime Wednesday and Barbara Keehn stood next to a tall ashtray, puffing a cigarette outside of the packed Clarksville Golden Corral.
“Some people smoke all the way through their meal,” she said. “I can’t handle that.”
Some Golden Corral patrons could have been doing just that as recently as two weeks ago. However, citing business reasons, the buffet-style eatery went smoke-free earlier this month.
As anti-smoking advocates have pushed for an indoor-smoking ban in Clarksville, Golden Corral is just the latest example of a business telling customers to extinguish their cigarettes without the hand of local government getting involved.
Keehn said she doesn’t mind it.
“That’s the way all places are going,” she said. “At least we can still smoke in our houses.”
Just next door, Bob Evans did the same thing in January. Ruby Tuesday went smoke free last November. And IHOP, Cheddars Casual Cafe, McAllister’s Deli and Fazoli’s are also among nonsmoking spots in the town.
“It makes good business sense,” said Karen Maier, vice president of marketing at Frisch’s Restaurants Inc., which owns Golden Corral.
On many days, customers would be waiting for tables in the nonsmoking section, while tables were empty in the smoking section, she said.
“I don’t care how strong your exhaust system is — smoke is in the air and it wanders,” she said.
Employees are also appreciative.
Over time, she said, the company expects to hear a few complaints about the decision from smoking customers. Though, Maier noted, Golden Corral is the kind of place most people are in and out of within an hour, so many don’t mind the nonsmoking policy....
Smoking is still allowed at Frisch’s Restaurant in Clarksville, which is owned by Frisch’s Restaurants Inc. as well. Decisions on whether or not to go smoke free are made by area supervisors....
An indoor-smoking ban was introduced in Clarksville in December, but was defeated by a 5-2 vote. Jeffersonville has had a ban in place since 2006, except for bars who serve the 21-and-older crowd.
Clarksville Town Council Vice President Greg Isgrigg — who voted against Clarksville’s ordinance last year — said he applauds Golden Corral and others for going smoke free voluntarily. However, he stressed that it was the company’s decision to do so.
“There’s a line where government doesn’t need to be involved,” he said. “It’s up to them to make the decision.”
A survey conducted last year showed that most residents support Jeffersonville’s ban and would support a similar measure in Clarksville.
Andi Hannah, coordinator of the Clark County Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Coalition, said that volunteers have not given up on a Clarksville ban....
Thanks to Greg Isgrigg and friends!
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 1:19 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
May I offer an argument for smoking bans in bars and restaurants? ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) is the worst air pollution commonly encountered by the public—ETS is estimated to cause 50,000 excess deaths per year, more than auto accidents. The danger due to ETS is well-established, and it is known from the tobacco industry's own internal documents that the industry has mounted a tenacious battle against in particular the science of the health dangers of ETS. The primary reason the tobacco companies want to prevent bans of smoking in bars and restaurants is because they are the remaining public spaces where smoking is permitted, and they fear the social acceptability of smoking will decrease when it is no longer allowed in public. Arguments about personal liberty must give way before a serious public health threat that effects many people in the hospitality industry who have limited employment options.
Links: New Report Reveals Evidence that Big Tobacco Tried to Hide Dangers of Secondhand Smoke; The Issue is Health (the latter link is to an interesting web site run by a medical professor that focuses on smoking bans).
As an economist and as a Libertarian, the only argument for (efficient) intervention is distorted info (you make a decent case here, but does anyone fail to realize that ETS is damaging) or irrationality (people are unable to weigh costs and benefits-- a dangerous rationale).
One other thought: There is a difference between modest and chronic exposure to ETS. The law does not make that distinction-- and in fact, emphasizes the former.
According to the Surgeon General's recent report on involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: "Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk." They also say: "There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous." http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm
But it does seem to me that smoking outdoors would have little benefit in terms of reducing exposure to ETS, unless smokers congregate near building entrances. So I think the primary benefit of banning smoking outdoors is simply to further discourage smoking itself. This must be part of the purpose of banning smoking on the campuses of Indiana University. IU has an interest in discouraging smoking among its employees: the university must bear the increased health costs resulting from the high morbidity of cigarette smokers.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home