Headlines; Cincinnati Enquirer; Monday, December 29, 2008: Smoking Ban Proving Difficult to Enforce
No crap Sherlock and move over Einstein! We have the next contestant seeking the Mr. Obvious crown.
Let’s set the stage.
- In 2006 Ohio voters used an initiative to ban smoking in public places and places of employment. (Link)
- Proposed in 2008, Senate Bill 346, an obvious response to that law, wanted to create exemptions for family-owned businesses, outdoor patios, and private clubs, but the bill died in committee.
- Smoke Free Ohio is an influential lobbying group on both voters and legislatures. And then there’s me: a non-smoker and who probably voted for the law.
- According to the Ohio Department of Health 60% of the complaints (between May 2007 and mid-December 2008) were investigated by county health departments and 40% going investigated 5% of the complaints resulted in citations and fines.
In other words, Ohio voters mandated something that the state either can’t enforce, has no means of enforcement, or chooses not to enforce.
My First Batch of Questions
-
How many people would it take to investigate and enforce statewide smoking violations in restaurants, bowling alleys, bars, taverns, private clubs, and any other public place?
-
How much would enforcement cost the state’s financial coffers?
Would fines and citations be able to finance enforcement?
A Situation and More Questions
A person walks into a bar, takes a seat and then fires up a smoke. Yep, bartenders and servers are the ones serving as the first line of enforcement.
-
How many customers have businesses have lost customers because of their enforcement?
-
How has the law effect sales numbers for businesses?
Before the voted ban, some restaurants had smoking and nonsmoking sections. Of course it was a longer wait for a nonsmoking table, but the seat “along the border” was questionable. Today, I regret my vote and wish for modification in the law.
1) The business owner has the right to make a buck. In that spirit, they must declare their business as smoke-free or smoking allowed. That’s one or the other; not sections for each. Therefore, the owner’s smoking decision (not the voters) impacts who walks through the doors as customers.
2) Customers have the right to chose whether to frequent the business or not. Since I don’t like the smoke, I won’t go in. But I refuse to take the angle that because I’m there, nobody can smoke.
Like many activist lobbying organizations, the smoke-free groups aren’t stupid; hence they’ll approach the issue looking at the effect of smoke on the workers. Do workers have a choice on where they work and the negatives that go with that choice? Is mandating improved ventilation a realistic option? To what extent do we expect employers to create a low-risk work area?
On one hand, the law is the law; and the citizens should expect the state of Ohio to enforce its own laws. On the other hand, this is an example demonstrating the effect of voters enacting laws outside of the legislative process that may not be enforceable.
I don’t know if this is a Libertarian streak in me or not, but I’ve also offered the following advice. If one finds Playboy offensive, don’t buy it. If one finds gambling as evil, don’t go to a casino. If one thinks a news channel is biased, don’t watch it. If one finds Howard Stern obnoxious and offensive, don’t listen. If the business allows smoking and one finds smoking offensive, don’t seek its services. It’s not that hard!
Private clubs as Moose Lodges should be able to make their own rules regarding smoking, and then members and potential members can react accordingly. Businesses as bowling alleys, bars, and restaurants can determine if they will allow smoking or not, and the market forces can determine their success or failure. Since a Land of Nannydom isn’t necessary, I’ll settle for fewer laws that protect people from themselves.
I agree with you whole heartedly….Business owners should be able to decide if they want to be smoke-free or not…Patrons can decide if they want to go there or not.
I know bar owners who don’t enforce the law….Some tell their bartenders it’s up to them….It’s their shift so it’s up to them.
One goal of this law was to bring more money in for the state, through the fines…But the state can’t afford the man-power it would take to enforce this law….I’m a non-smoker…I voted against this…I little tired of government trying to make every decision for us…They’re not very good at it.
great post.
Thanks Beez. Being both from Ohio and working in restaurants, you understand the premise.
Many bar owners are blowing off enforcement because some know the business will pay for the fine. The stats I posted say a lot about enforcement. Besides, I don’t think the state should turn their burden onto the county health departments (who already have enough to do).
WOW powerful write up Afrank! I agree totally. Us non smokers can make up our own minds as to go where they allow smoking. Me personally, I won’t, the smell just bothers me to much. I know here where i live, they’ve passed several laws such as the above, but really……it should be up to the individual & business owners to make up their own minds!!
Thanks CK. The headlines just got me going.
For sure, the situation isn’t an easy one. I’m not in favor of banning tobacco products because prohibition didn’t work … and the tobacco lobby is powerful. Hence let the owners make a decision and let the market determine what happens. As people, we have the gift of making choices, but with that gift comes the responsibility of that choice.
I think the best alternative was always having designated smoking and non-smoking sections. Obviously, the control is in the hands of the business owners to determine if they have such sections and how big they are.
When I worked in the hotel business, we had a certain block of rooms designated as smoking. It was a small amount, but it was generally sufficient for our needs. The only time it became an issue was when we had large groups booked that would use the entire wing for party purposes.
In cases like those, we would charge extra for folks to smoke in non-smoking rooms, do to the extra time necessary for cleaning said rooms. This put the onus on the customer, making them determine just how important that cigarette really was.
Thanks Frag. Here in Ohio, we had the smoking-nonsmoking sections in restaurants. Personally, that didn’t work very well – hence why I say the owner decides one way or another – then the market will determines the business.
Those with smoking-sensitivity health issues are a legit concern. Then again, they should make wise decisions and not go into restaurants, bars, etc that allow smoking.
I’m glad to see that hotels offer smoking and nonsmoking rooms. It’s a win-win for all occupants – well, as long as smokers don’t smoke in nonsmoking rooms. Given my wife is allergic to smoke, we are sensitive to our room requests when on the road.
Interesting question for the hotel industry, does having smoking and nonsmoking rooms affect occupancy rates?
We ran a 150 room property, with only 10 rooms dedicated to smoking. We had an average occupancy percentage of 70% or so, which is good for Vermont, which can see seasonal business. Over the course of my time working there, I can maybe remember only 1 or 2 people deciding to book elsewhere in order to get a smoking room.
Particularly in an environment where enforcement becomes problematic – either due to lack of will or resources or both – it makes little to no sense to have a statute in the first place.
It’s one of those situations where rather than try to legislate everything, I wish that for once people would look at it as an economic issue, as you suggest.
I recall a similar smoking ban where the proponents argued that bars actually earned more money than previous because of the non-smokers would were now coming out (which raises an entirely different social issue, I suppose). Sounds more like a business opportunity to me than a legislative opportunity.
Thanks Mo for your input.
I attempted to find some numbers regarding alcohol sales in bars before and after the ban, but no luck – although I didn’t do a lot of digging. Personally, I think when one asks about such information, the receiver has a tendency to be leary.
The Ohio law is a result of a voter referendum, not an act through the legislature – so the state is stuck with enforcing something they didn’t plan to do.
Like BEEZE said, this is another fine example as to the government trying to make decisions or us or attempting to change our thought process.
It should always be the owner’s discretion as to whether to enforce smoking or not. Sure, I’ve always been a non-smoker, but when it comes to economic part of it, owners shouldn’t be told how to run their business. I’m in no position to tell them how to run their place, and neither should anyone – government included.
Nice post Frank.
Thanks David. Remember though, in Ohio’s case, this is something based by voters, not the legislature. Of course that doesn’t mean the legislators wouldn’t have acted on their own.
Ah yes … life in the Land of Nannydom.
I also think it should be up to the buisness and that they should post it on the outside and on all advertising, I would say that all Restaurants that cater to children should be Non-Smoking.
I am also a Non-Smoker. If I want to go to a Sports Bar I expect to have smoking.
In Florida we have been Non Smoking for a while. I was a Mgr for Burger King for 12 1/2 years when this passed, At least in Florida smoking is still allowed on Outdoor Tables,
I believe that New York you cannot smoke outdoors either and there are states trying ban smoking in Cars too.
Larry … thanks for the notes about different parts of the country. Good points.
For sure, this is a complex issue, and one with a lot of gray. So many ways to look at it. A friend of mine ardently claims it’s all about health care costs. There is some truth with that, but that is also the tact the SmokeFree group makes.
Most companies have different costs for Health Insurance for smokers and some will not hire smokers.
Larry … I recall seeing a 60 minutes segment on a company who gave smokers one year to quit smoking or be fired. Company made stop-smoking programs available. The segment included 2 employees who were not successful, thus were terminated. Bottom line for the employer was health care costs.