Ever since Wisconsin implemented a statewide indoor smoking ban in public places last July, there have been disagreements on the various benefits and drawbacks of such a move. Recently, a study at the UW Carbone Cancer Center has provided a new insight into the issue.

One popular objection that has been used to criticize the ban is the concern over the harm to businesses, as customers who enjoy smoking at bars and restaurants could be driven away. There have even been claims that businesses, on average, lose 30% of their revenue due to such a ban. However, the study, conducted in Madison and four other Wisconsin cities, went to show that such effects are not significant. In fact, the retrospective five-year study on these five cities, which have banned indoor smoking for years before the statewide ban was imposed, showed no dip in revenue due to the smoking ban.

The study also indicated that the law was widely respected, suggesting that business owners did not experience significant enough ramifications that would encourage them to violate the law. This is true despite occasional stories or interviews of business owners who testify of the terrible disaster that the ban brings to their businesses.

While there have been disagreements on whether the study is representative of the state as a whole, the robust evidence of the harm of second hand smoke makes it beyond the point. Despite corporate attempts to cloud the dangers of tobacco smoke by manufacturing controversies, scientific consensus is strong that second hand smoke is a public hazard that increases risks of lung and other cancers, emphysema and stroke.

Taking this into account, it is only responsible for the government to take action against the unwilling imposition of tobacco smoke on nonsmokers. Steps to avoid such a significant public health issue should be taken, even at the expense of the revenue of business owners, as long as the costs do not prove to be too great. As such, the evidence that this study has brought (the costs are negligible at best) makes the decision almost a no-brainer.

The importance of this move has fortunately been seen by local state governments; beginning with Minnesota in 1975, the number of states banning smoking in public places has grown to nearly 40 today. However, some smokers or business owners might still object to the reining in of their freedom. To them, restricting their freedom to smoke or allow smoking is equivalent to Hitler-esque government intrusion into their private lives or private properties.

Ironically, it is true that the first smoking ban was devised by the Nazi Party in the forties. However, such a comparison need not be a source of concern, as much as the Nazis’ building the highways in Germany was an evil, terrible venture. Restricting smokers to where they will not be able to harm other people’s health is a necessary move to protect the health of the rest of the public, and smokers still have every right to smoke in other places.

Nevertheless, it might be desirable to minimize the alienation of people’s smoking behavior, probably without compromising public health. For instance, special sections could be dedicated for smokers that are separated from smoke-free sections. It is true that this might inflict some cost, but such a move by business owners might be able to accommodate smokers and mitigate concerns about reduced revenues.

While actions could be taken that give smokers more freedom, the ban is still necessary, especially considering the dearth of evidence supporting the economic arguments of its detractors.

Albert Budhipramono ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in biology.