And Now a Word from Someone Who Supports the Smoking Ban

Andy Boden

 Undergraduate/Political Science

In lieu of Student Senate’s recent decision to vote down a campus wide smoking ban, I thought that this was an appropriate time to bring this up.

In March of 2008, the Eau Claire City Council voted in favor of implementing a smoking ban in all public places that went into effect the following June. Many Eau Claire locals were upset and many still are. Last May Governor Doyle signed a statewide smoking ban into law which goes into effect in July of 2010. This new piece of legislation further aggravated many of the same locals and once again people were buzzing like a swarm of angry hornets. While in the Joynt this past summer I overheard a couple of old-timers sipping their glasses of Point Premium, shooting their shots of Jameson, and fiercely criticizing the smoking ban. I can understand why many people are upset about the ban; however, I feel that the anti-smoking ban residents have had their say and now it’s time for the pro-smoking ban residents to speak up and have our say.

One argument that I heard one of the old timers bring up was that bars like the Joynt are private businesses and therefore should be able to decide whether or not to allow smoking, and setting forth a rule like this is socialist. Okay, let’s imagine that the Joynt were to hire six-year-olds to work 70 hours a week and make ten cents on the dollar. Granted, smoking is not as bad as child labor; however, even though it’s to a lesser degree, it still falls on the same side of the fence, at least in my opinion. Therefore, one cannot make an argument that government regulation on private businesses is necessarily a bad thing or something that should not be allowed.

The question then becomes where to draw the line between what’s acceptable for government regulation and what’s not. As many people know, and as many people like to deny, smoking and secondhand smoke have adverse health effects. There are several studies that show a strong direct correlation between inhaling secondhand smoke and damages to the respiratory system. This clearly calls the issue of workers’ rights into question. However, the anti-smoking ban residents bring up the counterargument that those workers chose to work in a smoky environment. This calls into question whose rights should be given more consideration, smokers or workers. Even though smokers are very passionate about their rights, workers’ rights should be given more consideration. People need to work in order to survive and in order for the economy to survive. Not only is it a lot more difficult to find a job these days in this economy, but workers still have the right to work in safe environments that are as least detrimental to their health as possible. Even though smokers may feel singled out by this rationale, they choose to single themselves out by taking up an unhealthy habit. This is why they are the ones who have to pay cigarette taxes and not everyone else. And if they do so choose to take up this habit, they should do it in a place where they aren’t affecting anyone else.

The anti-smoking ban residents will then argue that the ban will drive away business. On the contrary, the fear of bars and restaurants losing business has been exaggerated. Not only has the ban helped businesses attract business from nonsmokers, but many smokers continue to return to the bars. In most places in this state, Eau Claire included, bars account for a primary form of entertainment for many people 21 and over. Since the Eau Claire smoking ban went into effect, the bars continue to be packed every weekend and still get the same amount of business during the week. While in the Joynt that summer day, I heard one of the old-timers mention that he once saw a few people who came into the bar after the ban was enacted and overheard them say how great it was to be able to hang out in a smokeless atmosphere. The old-timer then mentioned that those people never came back. Here’s the thing – I’m a nonsmoker and I go to the Joynt on a regular basis. I also have many friends who are also nonsmokers who go to the Joynt on a regular basis. I also have many friends who are smokers who go to the Joynt on a regular basis. To top off all that, there have been zero bars on Water Street to go out of business since the ban was enacted.

Now that Wisconsin has a statewide ban, there is a good chance that, if anything, business will return to Eau Claire bars. Once the statewide ban goes into effect, Eau Claire residents will no longer have the option of going to bars and restaurants in surrounding towns in order to be able to smoke. Once that happens, Eau Claire residents will be more inclined to stay in town to go to the bars. Plus, people will not be inclined to cross state borders. Of all the states that border Wisconsin, Michigan is the only state that doesn’t have a smoking ban. The threat this poses to Wisconsin bars losing business is relatively minimal for two reasons. For one, there are very few Wisconsin residents who live near the Michigan border. Secondly, the U.P. is so desolate that Wisconsin residents would have to travel a long way in order to find a bar and light up.

However, I will agree with the anti-smoking ban residents about one thing, and that is that the ban is bad for hookah bars. However, this doesn’t mean that there should be no smoking ban altogether. Instead, hookah bars should have been excluded from the smoking ban. The main point of going to bars is to drink, the main point of going to restaurants is to eat, the main point of going to pubs is to eat and drink, the main point of going to nightclubs is to drink and dance, the main point of going to casinos is to gamble, and the main point of going to hookah bars is to smoke. Once the main function of a business is directly affected by a new law, then it should be taken into special consideration.

Regardless, the main function of politics is the weighing of values and consideration of cost-benefit analysis. I would like to commend Governor Doyle, as well as the Eau Claire City Council, for taking this progressive step for Wisconsin. As for all you smokers out there, I know you’re probably angry, but this article isn’t directed at you. Instead, it was meant to contribute to the dialogue of this issue since not many supporters of the ban have stepped up to do so. However, for those of you who fell like going outside for a smoke after reading this, I ask that you kindly do not blow smoke in my face as I walk by.