2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographColumn: Where there is smoke...
By Shouger Merchant
Posted: 11/16/05 Section: Opinions
While the Illinois Lung Association and the C-U smoke-free alliance swears to continue the struggle to include Champaign-Urbana in the fight against passive smoking, businesses are mighty angry at the thought of government involvement in their private establishments.
But all businesses set up to serve the community are in a number of ways responsible to government in order to ensure safety and sanitation of their practices. They must get a license to operate and serve and they have to follow certain rules and regulations from washing their hands to wearing hairnets.
I agree that business owners have a prerogative to make their own decisions and govern themselves via personal choice. But in light of public health pursuits, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that making a restaurant smoke-free will be in the public interest and hence is a proper exercise of government authority.
Passive smoking, or secondhand smoke, has been rated by the Center of Disease Prevention and Control as the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the country. It also gives rise to a vast amount of other illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, lung cancer and stroke. If smokers are willing to take such risks with their own health, the law can at least offer some protection to non-smokers from such illnesses. The law would also work in favor of employees, who unlike patrons, have no choice but to be exposed to the secondhand smoke.
The main argument owners broach is that business will cease to be lucrative for owners and smokers will stop coming in for a meal and loss of revenue will result. But according to the 2002 statistics provided by the Illinois public health department, only 16.6 percent of residents in Champaign County are smokers while 83.4 percent are non-smokers. If these statistics are accurate, the ban could not possibly do much economic damage to the eating habits of the 17 percent of smokers.
And realistically, how many smokers are not going to visit their favorite restaurant just because they are now smoke-free? My guess is not too many. They can smoke before their meal and after their meal or even go out for a drag in between their meal. And if there are a few die-hard smoke addicts who refuse, who is to say there won't be new customers who previously didn't go there because they were allergic to smoke or simply couldn't deal with the foul smell?
But all businesses set up to serve the community are in a number of ways responsible to government in order to ensure safety and sanitation of their practices. They must get a license to operate and serve and they have to follow certain rules and regulations from washing their hands to wearing hairnets.
I agree that business owners have a prerogative to make their own decisions and govern themselves via personal choice. But in light of public health pursuits, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that making a restaurant smoke-free will be in the public interest and hence is a proper exercise of government authority.
Passive smoking, or secondhand smoke, has been rated by the Center of Disease Prevention and Control as the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the country. It also gives rise to a vast amount of other illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, lung cancer and stroke. If smokers are willing to take such risks with their own health, the law can at least offer some protection to non-smokers from such illnesses. The law would also work in favor of employees, who unlike patrons, have no choice but to be exposed to the secondhand smoke.
The main argument owners broach is that business will cease to be lucrative for owners and smokers will stop coming in for a meal and loss of revenue will result. But according to the 2002 statistics provided by the Illinois public health department, only 16.6 percent of residents in Champaign County are smokers while 83.4 percent are non-smokers. If these statistics are accurate, the ban could not possibly do much economic damage to the eating habits of the 17 percent of smokers.
And realistically, how many smokers are not going to visit their favorite restaurant just because they are now smoke-free? My guess is not too many. They can smoke before their meal and after their meal or even go out for a drag in between their meal. And if there are a few die-hard smoke addicts who refuse, who is to say there won't be new customers who previously didn't go there because they were allergic to smoke or simply couldn't deal with the foul smell?
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.