Smoking Rules

The Columbus City Council passed an ordinance banning smoking in all public buildings, giving exceptions to bars and private clubs. This has resulted in a group of extremely angry smokers, led by local restaurant owner Debbie Kramer, who are determined to defy the new ordinance.

I've found myself on the fence on this issue, because both sides make some sense in their arguments. But both sides also stretch the truth sometimes in their attempts to influence people to support their point of view.

I'm old enough to easily remember the bad old days when nearly everyone smoked. My father smoked, just about every adult I knew smoked, and plenty of teens smoked as well. The smoke bothered me quite a bit as a child, and those who study such things would say that my life-long allergy and asthma problems are most likely attributable to having a smoker in the house.

The basis for the new ordinance is the same as the reasons given for the statewide smoking ban in California and the many major cities who have followed suit. Secondhand smoke has been proven, at least according to "experts", to have detrimental effects similar to those that have long been known to impact smokers themselves. People who work in offices or serve in restaurants have the right to be protected from having to inhale secondhand smoke 8 hours per day, every day of their working lives.

I agree with banning smoking in offices. Back in South Carolina with the trucking company, I served on the committee that created the non-smoking policies adopted by management. Before the company banned smoking in the offices, the cubicle area in which I worked was constantly enveloped in the blue-gray haze of cigarette smoke. Walking through the cubicle maze on a typical day, it appeared as if a heavy fog had settled indoors. My sinuses seemed to never clear, I had a cough that never quite went away, my throat was always dry and scratchy, and my clothes reeked of cigarette smoke. I was often struck by the denial most smokers maintained that their smoking had any negative impact on those around them; for example, a typical smoker seems to believe that as long as they don't blow their smoke right in your face, you can't be bothered by it.

When my company went smoke-free, I was amazed at the immediate difference. Fresh air made me feel better, my coughing stopped, the scratchy throat and sinusitis went away. I didn't realize how much the smoke was impacting me until I got to experience clean air.

That didn't end the controversy, though. Going smoke-free inside the offices created a new problem. Smokers spent way too much time outdoors getting their nicotine fixes, and work wasn't getting done. Non-smokers resented the smokers, who they felt were getting away with frequent and extended breaks not available to the rest of the employees. As it was a trucking company, hardest hit were the dispatch departments. Dispatchers are expected to spend their entire shift on the phone, assigning shipments, working out directions with drivers, taking orders from customers. Suddenly they were missing calls, missing shipments, missing customer calls, because they were outside burning cigarettes for a significant part of their shift.

These days I am even more sensitive to cigarette smoke. If I'm in a restaurant and someone nearby lights up, I find myself irritated by their intrusion on my enjoyment of a meal. Sometimes at a sporting event someone will light up nearby and I'll send murderous thoughts his way, because his smoke is irritating me and others around him.

There are some restaurants with smoking and non-smoking sections that present no problem at all for a non-smoker. The sections are partitioned from each other and ventilated such that those of us in the non-smoking section don't have to see or smell anything unpleasant from the smokers' side. But there are many restaurants that don't have a good separation between the smoking and non-smoking areas. Especially those fast-food places that still allow smoking which designate a portion of their dining room for smokers, so you could find youself sitting in the non-smoking section but next to a table in the smoking section.

Since there aren't that many places left with the open dining rooms like I described above, those that remain have become hangouts for smokers. These restaurants now cater to the smoking customer, who can't find many places these days to have a cigarette with their meal. Likewise, such establishments are generally avoided by non-smokers.

So it seems reasonable to say, why not just let things continue as they are? Who is it hurting to have mostly non-smoking restaurants, with a few other restaurants catering to smokers?

According to the City Council, the answer is because the harm is to the non-smoking server (or "waitress", if you're not PC). The young waitress who is a non-smoker probably has a family to support and works in the restaurant that caters to a large smoking clientele certainly is being exposed to unhealthy conditions and is at risk for those diseases linked to prolonged exposure to high levels of secondhand smoke.

You could make a case that says these waitresses don't have to work there. Why not just get a job at a non-smoking restaurant? That might be a legitimate question, I don't know. Then again, maybe the smoking restaurant is the only place she could find a job, and she has decided to take the risk simply because she needs to work. Again, I don't know anyone in that situation firsthand, so I can't judge.

At first I thought, go ahead and ban smoking in all public buildings but exempt the bars and clubs. Because bars are places people go for the express purpose of pickling their livers and polluting their lungs, and private clubs aren't really private once the government starts poking thier nose into what they can and can't do in their own place.

But now I tend to think, if you're going to require an indoor smoking ban in all public places, why should anyone be exempted? Like Debbie Kramer rightly says, she may lose all her smoking customers to the bars, because they aren't subject to the ban. On a side note, it's long been a mystery to me how we can enact strict laws against drunk driving, yet see on any given night plenty of folks driving to and from their favorite bars.

Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to eat at any restaurant I choose without having to worry about having my meal ruined by some chain smoker a few feet away. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that an ordinance was needed, because over time more and more restaurants have been voluntarily going smoke-free because that's what their customers demand. It seems to be an issue that the free market is gradually addressing without any help from the government.

As for Debbie Kramer, I wish her luck, but I believe that as long as she serves great food in a pleasant atmosphere with fast and friendly servers, she doesn't have to worry about losing customers. In fact, I suspect she might see an increase in the non-smoking clientele who might otherwise have missed her culinary offerings served in the clean air of her now smoke-free restaurant.