OPINION & EDITORIAL
Smoking ban bad news for businesses
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Madison's annual hip-hop conference falters (April 14, 2003)
- Dear Dave: Post this near your desk (April 17, 2003)
- Politicking destroyed opt-out's proponents (April 14, 2003)
- Don't Cut Historical Society Funds (April 29, 2003)
- Redirecting control (April 23, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Open the flue (April 22, 2004)
- Turning a new leaf (March 21, 2006)
- A King's charge (April 6, 2005)
- Need for statewide smoking ban (October 12, 2005)
- Goals for City Council (December 12, 2002)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Monday, September 30, 2002
The campaign by a certain faction of Madison’s Common Council to prevent citizens from smoking in certain city bars strikes a dangerous match under the fire of private regulation downtown. Tomorrow, the Council will vote to make smoking illegal in 44 city establishments that draw less than half of their revenue from alcohol.
The alders who support this ban have turned their backs on their own constituents — the same bar and restaurant owners whose businesses will be affected. Obviously, the tavern and restaurant associations vehemently oppose the proposal, which members think will drive away smoking patrons and the requisite proceeds. Barb Mercer, president of the Tavern League, thinks the Council won’t stop until smoking is banned in all bars. What concerns us is the way the city thinks it can dictate the sorts of establishments these owners want to manage.
Looking for a flag to wave, the alders in favor of the ban point out the health perils of smoking and recent studies demonstrating higher cancer risks for restaurant employees — but these are hardly revelations. Patrons know what they’re getting when they sit down for a burger or a beer, and staff can always look for different kinds of work. Owners should be able to control what kind of atmosphere they want and whether they prohibit smoking.
Interestingly, the mayor and the rest of the anti-smoking contingent never mention “bars” when talking about eliminating smoking. In choosing the more general term “restaurant,” the city evokes images of peaceful diners and clear air, but a number of the businesses falling within the proposed ordinance might define themselves differently, especially at night. If Amy’s Café, Angelic Brewery, Nick’s or the Nitty Gritty want to be bars, why not let them be bars? The city drew an arbitrary line for alcohol sales at 50 percent, effectively taking from both restaurant and tavern owners the power to make this decision themselves.
As students, it’s hard to imagine an evening out lacking the smoke-filled experience of bars. Even if you decline to light up, that smoky haze is part of the nightlife that ought not go away. On a certain level, the sublime enjoyment of bar culture depends on these abrasive marginalities, even if some find them a nuisance.
More pragmatically, forcing smokers to walk in and out for a puff undermines bar operators from managing their other duties. According to Mercer, bartenders would lose the ability to prevent drug dealing by keeping an eye on which customers come and go at intervals. She is also concerned about patrons causing trouble at the door by refusing to leave drinks inside while they light up outdoors. Every way we look at it, a smoking ban is bad news. Give the city a feather in its cap for looking at ways to improve public health, but this effort to interfere with private business and personal behavior is unquestionably a black eye.
