Bostonians have three months and 18 days left to smoke in Boston bars before a new law banning smoking in all workplaces takes effect. While the new regulation sounds like a good way to safeguard health, it treads too far into decisions that should remain under business owners’ controls.
Using workplaces as the criteria glosses over the fact that the regulation will have the largest impact in bars and clubs where smoking is at least expected, and often accepted. Smoking in almost all traditional office buildings has long been taboo, and lighting up in restaurants was barred in 1998, so most other workplaces are already smoke-free.
This proves that traditional market forces have forced businesses to adapt to changing social stigmas. Even most smokers do not want to haze up already-stuffy office buildings, and many people want to eat with their families in smoke-free restaurants. However, most bars still allow smoking because a majority of their patrons expect the hazy atmosphere and are smokers or become them after a few drinks or six. Forcing smokers into the frigid air will only cause irritable customers and mountains of butts outside every bar. The same arguments also apply to clubs for dancing and concerts but with the additional problem that many clubs do not allow reentry.
Individual business owners should retain power over smoking as one of the business decisions they make to please the most patrons. Every establishment differs in terms of layout, purpose and customers; no blanket law can make the best decisions for every location. Bars get to know their patrons more personally than most other businesses and take complaints against smoking seriously. Furthermore, if enough drinkers want a smoke-free environment, someone could capitalize on the market and promote a smoke-free bar.
The presumed purpose of protecting workers is admirable, and everyone knows that secondhand smoke damages health. However, jobs without smoky environments abound, and those serious about protecting their lungs can choose other jobs. People, especially young ones most likely to work in bars, tend to make employment decisions based on trivial criteria like what uniforms they will wear, what variety of horrible customers they will have to confront and what discounts they can receive.
Boston University dormitories will not fall under the new regulations because they qualify as residences, and they parallel how smoking decisions should be left to individuals rather than legislators. The smoking policy is set up to allow smokers to smoke in their own rooms, and others can complain if the smoke bothers them. This follows how smoking works in the real world: when non-smokers have issues with secondhand smoke, they take precedent, but smokers can smoke in the few environments where smoke prevails their own rooms, or bars and nightclubs. The system lets smokers choose to destroy their own lungs, and those who respond like adults have more of a right to smoke-free air.
Boston should follow BU’s smoking policies: let smokers have their cigarettes, but only in places where complaints from non-smokers about secondhand smoke can be dismissed by owners or residents. The Boston Public Health Commission should repeal the ban on smoking in workplaces, letting business owners’ decisions respond to social attitudes.