Worried about the effect on small restaurants who can scarcely afford to lose business, the Norfolk City Council decided last week to rescind a smoking ban it approved in October.
Instead, the council members are considering a measure that would essentially sell smoking licenses to restaurants at $1,000 a pop.
"Half a loaf is better than nothing," said Councilman Don Williams, who came up with the idea.
It goes without saying that at $1,000, this may be the most expensive half loaf in history; it also goes without saying that charging restaurants to allow smoking may not help their bottom line.
So what's working here?
The impetus behind the strange gyrations in council chambers seems to be - mostly - a kind of fear that banning smoking in city restaurants would hurt business, would drive diners to other cities.
A few restaurant owners have fanned those worries, and more than a few members of City Council have been convinced. Here's the problem: There is no credible evidence that banning smoking hurts restaurants.
There is, in fact, study after study to show that restaurant business improves, or at least doesn't get worse, after a smoking ban, including in communities surrounded by places that permit smoking. Perhaps that's because the 80 percent of the nation that doesn't smoke is now free to have a drink or a meal without worrying about their health, or that their clothes will stink.
For a restaurant's workers, of course, the worries about smoking have always been more than cosmetic, academic, or financial.
"While the number of deaths caused by chronic exposure to secondhand smoke is substantially less than the number caused by active smoking, the public health concern is elevated because secondhand-smoke deaths are occurring among individuals who have decided not to smoke, and thus their increased risk for disease and death is involuntary," said a study published by the Society of Actuaries.
How many people die from second-hand smoke? The actuaries, in 2005, estimated the number at 50,000 a year, undoubtedly many of them workers in restaurants where second-hand smoke is especially heavy, and from which there is little opportunity for escape or respite during an eight-hour shift.
A $1,000 license to smoke will, in effect, ban cigarettes from restaurants that can't afford to pay the bill. For their workers, that's undoubtedly a healthy thing.
But it's awfully hard to argue, from City Hall, that workers in richer restaurants don't deserve the same protection. Or, if you're arguing from behind the bar, that $1,000 is enough to buy permission to allow customers to sicken your employees.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Maynard
I'm just a fun loving gal, I have fun where ever I go!!!!!
Kate
As long as you push for government guns where they do not belong I will continue to oppose them every step of the way. Since you have now resorted to childish name calling I have to conclude you realize that your position is terribly flawed.
Since you are not forced to enter my business you have no business forcing me to cater to your wishes.
Gabs, Kate
Are you two girls having fun in here?
Gabrielle
Again, I totally disagree with you. I find I not only have the "right" but the responsibility to continue to press for laws to restrict smoking in ALL public places. Actually, I won't be satisfied until the filthy tobacco corporations goes up in flames from their own noxious smoke!
By the way, is your "For Members Only" private club Narcotics Anonymous since smokers are drug addicts?
Kate
And I cannot disagree with you more. I do agree that we agreed to disagree about a year or so ago, but as long as you continue to push for government interference where it is unwarranted, I can not "move along."
You have honestly stated this subject is a pet peeve of yours. Guess what? It is for me as well, because I am a business owner. That I do not own a bar or restaurant is immaterial as this subject addresses ALL private businesses. Including where I cook and tend bar a few evenings a week, which happens to be a members only club, thus making it even MORE of a private business. You have no business telling me how to run my business or how to treat my customers.
gabrielle
Sorry, I just cannot disagree with you more. Smokers know their habit causes myriad adverse health issues; yet, have no problem lighting up and blowing the stench into the air of innocent bystanders. And you don't see that as selfish? As I said to you about a year ago, we just need to agree to disagree and move on.
Kate
By your logic there should be no question about banning shrimp anywhere and everywhere because there are people allergic to it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?
People with certain types of allergies and other health issues take personal resposibility to protect themselves. Shouldn't those bothered by tobacco smoke take the same type responsibility?
Are you so helpless that you need the government to take care of you, yet expect those with allergies such as mine to take care of ourselves?
Many people claim smokers are selfish, it seems to me the anti-smokers are the selfish ones.
gabrielle
If you had to worry that folks would walk around with raw shrimp dangling out of their mouths or hands at beaches, parks, oudoor shows and restaurants, I think you would find yourself pretty upset and riddled with some anxiety. That is how many chemically sensitive folks like myself feel about cigarettes. And since smokers blow their stench into the air, causing others to inhale it, I suppose it would be comparable to putting a raw shrimp upto your mouth and nose and say, having you kiss it?
Kate
I totally agree with you that "ethics is simply doing the right thing." I also agree that it can be subjective. I also agree with the definition you provided. Where we disagree is with your idea of injury. While I do agree that smoking can be injurious to the smoker, I do not believe it is injurious to otherwise healthy non-smokers.
I used seafood allergies earlier as an example of people taking responsibility for themselves. I happen to be highly allergic to raw shrimp, but that is my personal problem and thus my responsibility to avoid. I have no right to demand my employer stop cooking shrimp to accomodate me, do I?
gabrielle
Well, to me, ethics is simply doing the right thing. I can appreciate that this meaning is subjective so I perused the internet and came up with what I hope you will agree is a more acceptable definition. I found this at the website for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara, the Jesuit Univ. in Silicon Valley. Granted, being Jesuit, there is most likey a Christian bent. The first sentence says, "The meaning of ethics is hard to pin down." The article goes on to say ethics is not doing what society accepts nor is it about religion. "Ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do.Ethics and ethical standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right of freedom from injury, and the right to privacy." Obviously since smoking compromises this basic tenet, 'the right of freedom of injury', I think it is unethical of you, an intelligent and informed citizen, to not only allow a known carcinogen to compromise the health of others but by working there, you are actually being an accomplice, don't you think?
Ethics and morality and OSHA
Kate, could you please explain to me what ethics have to do with me not "demanding" my employer change his policies to suit me? In fact I would find it very UNethical to do so knowing full well that I freely accepted employment knowing the policy before hand.
Dfwdabull wondered why OSHA hasn't stepped in here and mistakenly blames tobacco interests. The fact is OSHA was sued by anti-smoking group ASH for just that. ASH very quietly dropped the suit when it was determined that if OSHA did put in regulations nearly every smoking ban in the country would be overturned. IOW the very proponents of smoking bans are the ones that don't want OSHA involved.
georges
Truce accepted! And I like your explanantion. And I agree that because I never mastered the art of assertiveness, I often go directly to aggressiveness which is counter-productive. See, I really can be reasonable. I hope you go outside today and smell the Spring flowers, I know I am.
Katet
With all due respect, your approach to getting people to quit smoking will never work. Like other drugs smoking is an addiction. You cannot get people to quit by calling them names or belittling them. A little understanding goes a long ways, and a little compassion does also. Just because it's something you want and are so outraged about doesn't help matters at all. You have a confrontational and demanding personality, which I understand because it's something I have to watch also. You EXPECT people to quit because it's what you want, but that's not going to work. As an adult, I learned a long time ago that just because I wanted it or expected it doesn't mean I'm going to get it. If smoke causes you all these medical problems, then please try and remove yourself from smokers. You can do that! Yes smokers need to be respectful of others, but outside in the open air, if I was a smoker, I wouldn't care that you were close by. Truce?
georges
Don't forget, my friend, that you don't know me. You know I detest smoking because that is my pet peeve. I simply cannot understand why people continue to pollute their bodies when help to quit is available. That aside, I have many interests you know not of. Some day maybe we can discuss philosophy, democracy, theology, sociology, or psychology or any other "ology" or topic of your choosing. Until then, to quote Rodney King, "can't we just get along"?
News alert
"Cell phones could kill more people than smoking or asbestos exposure, according to an award-winning Australian cancer expert who was trained at the Mayo Clinic in the United States."
This article hit the news today. Looks like nothing is healthy anymore.
Katet, since when did you become everone's big brother? You don't really expect any of us to believe you care about the families of people who die from smoking. The only thing you care about is spouting off against smoking any place and anywhere expeically around you. That's what this is all about, YOU!
Kate Wow...
You really do hate smoking if you are willing to pay more taxes to stop this filthy habit. Maybe I have misjudged you. How much will you pay me to quit, even in my car, & at home?..make it worth my while, and I wont be joining the others adding any fluid to your grave, if I outlive you as a result...The magical amount..la la la la..just enough to hook you..la la la(anti smoking ad song on G4 TV)..pretty cool commercial, but not enough to quit. Kate the grave thing made me laugh too. I forgot who said it but it was very well written..lol
georges61555
I remember answering your question regarding taxes once before but I don't mind doing it again...I would gladly pay higher taxes to offset the filthy, bloody, tobacco revenue. The money generated by a product known to cause cancer and myriad other health issues for smokers as well as innocent others, does not even offset the medical costs. Each year we lose billions in lost wages due to smoking related illneses. The emotional toll placed on smokers and members of their families who have to watch them slowly die gasping for breath is incalculable. To realize the good old U.S.A. manufacturers and distributes this trash worldwide while proclaiming how benevolent we are makes me ill.
Tax revenue
How mush tax increase are you anti-smokers willing to pay if cigarettes and other related items were banned in Virginia? I posted this previously and NOT ONE of you commnet about it. Why is that? I'll tell you why, because it all comes down to dollars and cents and you really don't care about health, you simply wouldn't want to pay higher taxes if cigarettes are banned. You just want what you want when you want it and to heck with anything else. Why don't you find something better to do than sit here telling other people how to run their lives. Who do you think you are anyway? It's a smokers choice to smoke. Like it or not it is a choice and you also have choices, stay out of restaurants and bars that allow it. But that's to easy, because all you really want to do is get in people's face and complain. If some of you aren't complaining you wouldn't know what to do with yourself. Grow up!
maybe...
I liked the comment about OSHA. It would be interesting to find out why they haven't stepped into this yet. Of course the answer will always be the tabacco lobby. Gotta keep as many people as possible addicted for as long as possible. Smoking related deaths in the 'modern era" estimated at one billion people, in my family, virtually EVERYONE in the generation before mine...FIRE UP AND CHOKE YOURSELF INTO OBLIVION!
BTW
I think the $1000 smoking license thing is ridiculously hypocritical on the part of council. Wasn't the whole idea of rescinding the ban to not put Norfolk business owners at a disadvantage to business owners in other cities? So, why don't we just pit them against EACH OTHER?? Stupid, stupid, stupid....