UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN

CENTRE FOR FOUNDATION STUDIES

ISSUE ANALYSIS

Theme
Title
Names: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lecture Group
Lecturers Name

TITLE
Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Restaurants?
 Reference Only

In the perfect situation, smoking policy would be set by bar or restaurant owners, and

customers would patronize the establishments with the policy they prefer. Customers would

decidewithout the governments helpif they want to avoid smoke-filled rooms or enter them.

They might even choose to sit in an area sectioned off for smokers or non-smokers, but the

ultimate issue is choice ( Ruwart 1). When the government starts telling restaurant owners what
JUSTIFY
their customers can and cannot do, the government is overstepping its boundaries.

Our government aims to protect usto save us from societys evils. However, in an

attempt to protect the public from the effects of passive smoking (second hand smoke)of

which, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in 1994, the statistical

evidence does not . . . support a conclusion that there are substantive health effects . . .

(Krauthammer)the feds have failed to protect a vital part of the U.S. economic population:

business owners. Many people who drink also tend to smoke; banning drinkers from smoking

has hurt business in some bars and restaurants. According to the California Licensed Beverage

Association, business has dropped as much as 85 percent . . . since the prohibition took effect

(Bar Owners Vow 1). The decrease in customers and subsequent loss of revenue has far-

reaching effects on employers. A study by the American Beverage Institute entitled Effect of

1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns, and Night Clubs asked 300 respondents about

the effects of the ban on their businesses. When asked if the ban caused owners to lay off

employees or cut working hours, 29.7 percent of respondents answered yes; 59 percent gave

the same answer when asked if they experienced a loss of tips/gratuities for bar and serving-staff

employees (1). The plight of restaurant and bar owners is often ignored, but it is a serious issue

for them and for their employees.

PAGE NUMBER
Updated:Semester 201705
 Reference Only

While the argument rages over the effects of smoking on public health, the question that

remains is this: How much is society entitled to penalize smokers for their decisions because

in societys viewthose decisions are unhealthy? (Samuelson). Smoking tobacco is not an

illegal act, yet the 25 percent of Americans who do smoke are often treated as if they were

criminals. They are incessantly nagged, blamed for numerous illnesses and unpleasantries, and

made to feel guilty by self-righteous non smokers (Bork 28). The Environmental Protection

Agency estimates that living with a smoker increases your chance of lung cancer by 19 percent.

What they fail to tell you is that, in contrast, (firsthand) smoking increases your chance 1,000

percent (Buckley). Why is the act of smoking tobacco, which merely injures oneself, so

scrutinized and shunned by society, while drinking alcohol, which is by far more deadly to

innocent bystanders, is accepted by society and virtually unregulated? (Krauthammer). One may

not wish to be seated near an extremely obese person in a restaurant, but it would certainly be

unconstitutional to deny service to these patrons. In modern society, the government knows

better than to discriminate against minorities, senior citizens, or the physically handicapped; it

does not hesitate, however, to discriminate against smokers.

Personal choice is a simple principle that is highly valued in American society. Banning

smoking in all public restaurants violates this principle and jeopardizes our freedom. Smoking

should not be banned in all restaurants. A ban on smoking imposes unnecessary governmental

interference in private business, affects business owners negatively, and discriminates against

smokers. Like the black Southerner turned away because of racial segregation, the smoker is

unfairly treated. Sadly, just when our government claims to be whisking away the clouds of

smoke, it is legislating a cloud of discrimination.

Updated:Semester 201705
 Reference Only

REFERENCES

Bar Owners Vow to Continue to Fight California Smoking Ban; Owners Contend with
Disruption, Lost Revenues, and Customer Dissatisfaction. Forces.org. 24 Feb. 2001.
National Smokers Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.forces.org/californ/calud/calud4.htm on 27 June 2013.

Bork, Robert H. (1997) Addicted to Health. National Review: 28-30.

Buckley, William F., Jr. Tobacco Settlement Time? National Review 20 April 1998:63.

Effect of 1998 California Smoking Ban on Bars, Taverns, and Night Clubs. abionline.org.
American Beverage Institute. 8 March 2001 <http://abionline.org/ca_smoking6.html>.

Krauthammer, Charles. The New Prohibitionism. Time 6 Oct. 1997:112.

Ruwart, Dr. Ask Dr. Ruwart: Libertarians on Smoking Bans. self-gov.org. 19 Mar. 1998.
Advocates for Self-Government. 8 Mar. 2001 <http://www.self-
gov.org/ruwart/q0028.html>.

Samuelson, Robert J. The Amazing Smoke Screen. Newsweek 30 Nov. 1998:47.

ARRANGED IN ALPHABETICLE
ORDER

Updated:Semester 201705
 Reference Only

Print all your references and compile them after this page. Make
sure they are in the order of quotation in your essay. Please do
highlight the parts which you have quoted for your essay. PLEASE
DELETE THIS TEXT BOX IF YOU PLAN TO PRINT THIS PAGE TO BE
SUBMITTED!

APPENDICES

Updated:Semester 201705
 Reference Only

HIGHLIGHT QUOTED

CONTENTS

Updated:Semester 201705