Ban promotes health, should be bars’ choice

House Editorial

The Virginia State Senate’s proposed smoking ban will end smoking in areas frequented by the public.

This is a positive move for the state that will reduce second-hand smoke exposure to patrons who used to have no choice in the matter — especially children. The health risks of exposing children to cigarette smoke vastly outweigh protecting a smoker’s desire to light up over coffee.

Some proprietors argue they will see a decrease in business, but in states with similar bans, this hasn’t necessarily been the case.

Some groups believe that smoking caused particular businesses to lose customers, but most studies suggest smoking bans have either no effect or even cause a moderate increase in business.

The bans in restaurants, pool halls, bowling alleys and other publicly accessed areas is a step forward in public health, but some states have a ban in place for bars as well.

The Virginia ban will only stop smoking in bars that are not closed off — bars attached to restaurants, for example.

While the ban for restaurants and bowling alleys is a good move, a blanket ban for bars wouldn’t be popular or even desirable — some bars sell their ambiance as strongly as their drinks. A bar also is inherently limited to non-family patrons, and its patrons have a choice in whether or not to attend. A law outright protecting patrons from their own choices would be out of line, especially in a state where 24.5 percent of the population smokes.

However, a law that promoted smoke-free bars would benefit non-smoking patrons as well as bar employees.

The legislature should offer tax incentives to bar proprietors who forbid smoking in their bars based on the public health cost reduction to which they will contribute.

These tax incentives would help encourage bars to eliminate smoking on their premises, but, if a bar owner felt a smoky environment was beneficial to its business, it would not have to change.

It is commendable that the legislature is considering any ban and, if it enacted further legislation promoting smoke-free establishment, it would have done everything necessary to protect the lungs of non-smokers in public.