By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette
Monday, Feb. 22, 2010 – I wasn’t surprised recently to read that my liberal friends on the editorial board of the local newspaper support a smoking ban now being considered by Bardstown City Council. Editorial boards tend to rally for “causes” they believe as a group will be progressive, save lives and improve public health — admittedly, all admirable goals.
The editorial states the obvious and warns of the dangers of secondhand smoke to those who breathe it. But it also fails to point out the ban falls short of protecting public health to the degree its supporters (and the editorial board) would like to have others believe. Why? Because the vast majority of public places in Bardstown are already smoke-free.
Had such a ban been proposed 20 years ago, I would have probably been in favor of it. Cigarette smoking was the rule rather than the exception. My parents, both of whom were three-pack-a-day smokers, both died of smoking-related cancers. Living for 18 years in the same house, I know all too well the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.
Thanks to years of education about the dangers of smoking and changing public tastes, roughly 75 percent of public places in Bardstown are today smoke-free. The decision to go smoke-free has been left to property owners and business owners. The businesses who have gone smoke-free understand it was in their best interest to cater to their customers wants; that’s just good business.
The remaining businesses who allow smoking do so by their own choice. Why? If you look at the business owners who spoke at the recent public hearing, the reason is clear — their customers want a place to smoke. I think all of the businesses who had a representative speak were bars or restaurants with bars — both businesses that attract cigarette smokers.
At the hearing I heard the passionate supporters of the ban describe the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke. Pediatricians, family doctors and the county schools superintendent all spoke about the impact of smoking on health — particularly its impact on our youth. Superintendent Dr. Jan Lantz implored the council to approve a smoking ban to protect the health of our future generations.
Hard arguments to refute. Or are they?
The truth that surfaced during the hearing was the true danger — and primary source of exposure — of secondhand smoke to youth does NOT come from the remaining businesses in Bardstown that allow customers to smoke. Youth exposure to secondhand smoke is primarily from parents and family members who smoke in the home and their cars. The ban would not affect smoking in those instances, nor protect our youth from secondhand smoke.
When you think of the businesses in town that permit smoking, I find it doubtful that the “epidemic of secondhand smoke” can be traced to our local youth crowding into bars and restaurants where they suffer its effects. But those businesses are the ones who will lose the right to allow their patrons to smoke if the council approves the ban.
So why the push for a ban? Because a special interest group decided to target the city of Bardstown after failing nearly two years ago to get a countywide smoking ban. Without the push by the members of this special interest group, there would be no ban discussed.
The council has much to consider: Do the members of the special interest group really speak for the majority of Bardstown citizens? With most businesses already smoke-free, is the ban just a “feel good” measure, a badge of honor so the city can promote its own progressiveness? What about the rights of those who smoke, as well as the right of the business owners to determine if they will allow smoking?
At the beginning of the public hearing about the smoking ban, a gentleman brought to the council’s table a large glass bowl and set it before Mayor Dick Heaton. The bowl was empty; however the sides of the bowl were coated with a milky translucent coating of some sort. When the man later spoke, the bowl helped him make his point: With all of the environmental issues facing the city, there are bigger fish to fry than wrestling with a smoking ban. The glass bowl was his Exhibit A; days earlier the bowl had been filled with water from the City of Bardstown water treatment plant. The water evaporated, leaving behind the very visible deposits on the side and bottom of the glass bowl. The man suggested the council take on existing water, sewer and air quality issues rather than focus on an issue of limited benefit.
So moving forward, the supporters of the ban all say they have science on their side; they can quote studies and research ad nauseum about smoking and its dangers. No one is arguing those facts. But what will a smoking ban accomplish? Other than giving a group of activists a “win,” just who are the winners here? The restaurants who fear they’ll lose business if they can’t offer their patrons one of the few remaining places to smoke? The city council, who will have bragging rights about how progressive they are?
The more important question may be identifying who the losers are if the council approves the ban. These include the business owners, who lose the right to set their own standards for acceptable behavior (at least regarding smoking); the smokers, who are have the right to smoke in public stripped from them; and lastly, the citizens of Bardstown. A ban on any behavior that is legal, using a legal product lawfully — in the name of “everyone’s health” — forces the smoking minority to submit to the tyranny of the majority.
As a non-smoker, I do not knowingly go to a restaurant that allows smoking. That’s my choice, and that’s the choice of everyone who wishes not to be around smokers. The proposed ban doesn’t improve the freedom we have as individuals to make our own choices; it only penalizes those whose lifestyle is not approved by a special interest group.
For the Bardstown City Council, the unmentioned elephant in the room is the fact they are considering this ban in an election year. The office of mayor and all six council seats will be on the November ballot. Will those on the council who support a ban find their political aspirations relegated to the ash can? Stay tuned ….
-30-
