An alternative to a smoking ban

The Oregon Legislature continues its assault on vices, with a proposed ban on smoking in bars and pubs piling on top of the Governor’s proposed 84-cents-a-pack cigarette tax and the proposed 12-fold increase in beer taxes.

The beer tax I’ve addressed in a previous blog entry. The cigarette tax I favor outright. Cigarettes kill. They killed my father, and the second-hand smoke probably contributed to the cancers that three of my sisters have so far survived. As far as I’m concerned, tax the hell out of it. Recoup the full costs of tobacco; be punitive if we must. Price it out of reach, for all I care.

Ah, but banning it? Even partially? I’m not so sure. Maybe there’s another option. Let’s explore this question a moment.

I’m a rather libertarian sort, who nonetheless believes it appropriate to fully recover the external costs of a product, process, or behavior – in this case, smoking tobacco – so that the producer and consumer ultimately bear those costs. Hence, my support of high cigarette and higher (but not punitive) alcohol taxes. Right now, both are too low.

But I also believe that, once the price mechanism is set at the right level and precautions are taken to prevent further harm to others, we should allow people freedom of choice. Even if that choice is harmful to oneself.

The ban on smoking in pubs is problematic in that it takes an admittedly evil – but LEGAL – product and behavior (smoking tobacco) and removes our right to choose to do it. And, to do it in a time and place long associated (even expected) with smoking:  drinking. If we’re too chicken to ban it altogether, why ban it in the very place people want to do it most?

Isn’t the choice to allow this behavior up to the pub owner and the customer? Shouldn’t we allow individuals the right to choose whether to kill themselves or not? Customers who don’t like it can go elsewhere, right?

If only it were so simple.

The problem is that pesky second-hand smoke issue. Sure, non-smoking customers can go elsewhere, but not everyone can:  employees, vendors, inspectors, et al.

Maybe the occasional visit of the vendor or inspector can be overlooked. One whiff won’t kill them.

But not so the employees. Oh, sure, technically they can quit. But why should it be a choice between making a living – and dying?

Further, there’s an unequal power relationship between employers and employees. In short, employers have it, employees don’t. That’s especially true in the food service industry, which has never been (and probably never will be) unionized. Jobs are tenuous and competitive, pay is typically poor (except in swanky places), and stress is very high. I can attest to all of this with first-hand experience.

So, employees aren’t that free to walk – especially if most of the places they’d walk to are just as smoky. They often have to live with it, or, in this case, die a little faster.

Pub owners have moan that a ban could put them out of business. Sorry, I don’t buy it. Lose revenue, maybe, but close, no. They’d all be playing by the same rules. The tiny minority of pub customers who won’t go to a bar because they’re not allowed to smoke would be more than made up for by the increase in customers who might return because the environment is now smoke-free. There are many more non-smokers than smokers – and with luck, that ratio will continue to increase.

Don Younger of the Horse Brass and other fine pubs once told me that he believes that taverns are private, not public places, and as such, should not be regulated. A smoking ban, he said, would be “the end of pubs as we know them... the corner bar, the mom-and-pop’s, goes away.” Well, smoking has been banned in Washington and California, and I haven’t seen evidence of what he’s predicting. I won’t say it hasn’t happened, but I just haven’t seen it.

Having said all of that, I’m still not convinced that a ban is the way to go.

I still like the price mechanism. Why not a pub smoking tax? Establishments that allow smoking would pay a per-seat premium to the state for that privilege (funds to be used to pay for education and health programs related to smoking). Further I think smoking establishments should be required to provide full health insurance benefits to all employees, even part-timers, and maybe a wage premium, too.

In other words, internalize those external impacts and costs. Give choices – and information – but make the polluter pay.

On the other side of the coin, those of use who prefer a smoke-free environment should support those who give it to us. Here’s a list of places around Portland that I’ve put together from my interviews for Guest on Tap articles and from the Oregon Brew Crew listserve. Please, if you know of more, chime in!

==============================================================
Smoke-free pub list (for locations, Check out this map)

BJ’s (Several locations)
Bridgeport (downtown, downstairs)
Clinton Street Brewing
Elliott Glacier in Parkdale
Fifth Quadrant
Full Sail (none indoors – ok on deck)
Hazel Dell Brewpub (Vancouver)
Karlsson’s Brewing, Sandy, OR
Laurelwood (2 locations)
Lucky Lab (3 locations)
McMenamin’s on the Columbia & East Vancouver (Mill Plain)
Old Market Pub
Portland Tap Room
Roots (inside seating only)
Walking Man (Stevenson)
Widmer Gasthaus