Here is an editorial from the print edition of the Villager this week:

Banning restaurant smoking

a public health issue

There are many arguments pro and con that have been forwarded in recent years regarding whether to allow smoking in restaurants.

Some in the restaurant industry have raised concerns about the economic fallout they’d face if smoking were prohibited. But others point to evidence that suggests smoking bans don’t result in economic hardship.

Republican politicians often have expressed an unwillingness to place more restrictions on private businesses.

But the overriding issue when it comes to smoking in restaurants should be public health for patrons and employees. On that front, the choice should be clear: ban smoking in restaurants.

According to research gathered by ClearWay Minnesota:

Exposure to secondhand smoke poses significant health risks. Exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for at least 3,000 lung cancer deaths and at least 46,000 coronary heart disease deaths each year. Even limited exposure to secondhand smoke has negative health consequences. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is expensive. The annual direct health care cost of treating tobacco-related illnesses in the United States is estimated to total more than $9.5 billion. Cigarette smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke also cost $92 billion a year in worker productivity losses. Indoor smoking policies substantially reduce exposure to toxins and carcinogens. Secondhand smoke contains 11 known cancer-causing agents and 250 known toxins. Research has shown that indoor smoking policies significantly reduce levels of airborne cancer-causing chemicals. Hennepin County’s comprehensive smoke-free ordinance helped reduce harmful air pollution in bars and restaurants by 99 percent.

Smoke-free laws do not discourage business activity. Independent, scientific economic research consistently proves that smoke-free policies have no net negative impact on the hospitality industry. Business tax receipts for New York City restaurants and bars increased 8.7 percent after implementation of that city’s smoke-free law, and bar and restaurant employment went up by 10,600 jobs. After passage of a comprehensive statewide clean indoor air law, California bars and restaurants had 218,300 more employees in 2005 than they did in 1995. In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that “smoke-free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry.”

EDITORS WRONG ON SMOKING BAN

This was quite possibly the worst editorial in the history of the Villager (okay, maybe second to that Tom Workman one).

The statistics you cited were meaningless. Yes, tax revenue went up for NYC in 2003 after the ban. What happened right before that? Oh, yeah. 9/11 and an economic recession. To say that Bloomberg’s smoking ban increased economic growth is counter to what, well, economics says.

Despite the scary claims of the ban proponents, their Puritanism is NOT a societal welfare improvement. Here’s the reality, which was shown in some of the same studies: franchise and large establishments can survive a smoking ban and possibly benefit. Given their resources, they can easily rebrand themselves. Small businesses are disproportionately hurt by smoking bans. Neighborhood bar and grill type places simply cannot survive, as many have a dedicated and consistent customer base (often low-income smokers) which they rely on. Bartenders and servers hate it because smokers tend to stay longer and tip better.

The California statistic was even more ridiculous than the NYC statistic. Yes, over a period of 10 years ('95-'05), the economy added workers. Can you attribute that to the smoking ban? Certainly not.

We already have plenty of restaurants that went smoke-free (or opened smoke-free) by choice. In an open society, we tend to allow businesses to decide what is permitted and what is not. Last time I checked, smoking tobacco is legal. The taxes raised fund many wasteful government programs and smokers tend to die earlier, decreasing their burden on America's screwball entitlement programs.

Do a little more thinking. Take an economics course or two. Sit in on a CHS statistics class. Anything.

And ask yourself this: do we really want to live in a country where hypochondria sets public policy?

... because you're too lazy to understand the implications of your proposed policy?

Please explain why your preferences are more important than coherently defined property rights.

There are plenty of businesses that went smoke-free by choice. Why do you hate freedom?