The justification for smoking bans, to the extent that there is one, is to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Thus many bans at least make allowances for establishments where smoking is part of the business. Yet a bill in New Hampshire that would have allowed bars that get 60% of their income from cigar sales was recently blocked in the legislature. And in Albuquerque, NM, city councilors may amend the city’s ban to forbid smoking even in tobacco shops:
Owners of cigar bars and smoke shops in Albuquerque are fuming over how a city councilor wants to change the city’s smoking ban.
The proposed changes would no longer allow smokers to light up in either type of business.
Larry Monte has owned Monte’s near Louisiana and Meanaul for nearly 35 years. He says if City Councilor Michael Cadigan’s recent proposal becomes law, he’ll lose thousands of dollars in business a year.
“There’s a reason why we do it inside, we don’t want to offend anybody. We take all that into consideration,” he said.
Cadigan said Monte can still allow patrons to smoke, just not inside.
Anyone who goes to a good tobacconist knows that the appeal isn’t just in the selection of cigars, but in the community that develops among employees and customers chatting and smoking. Extending bans to businesses explicitly built around tobacco isn’t remotely a public health measure; it’s further mission creep by anti-smoking lobbyists who want to snuff out an unpopular way of life.
Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (10)
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Follow me on Twitter
The logic of protecting employees would still sort of work in a tobacco shop, if it had any employees.
The premise that a smoking ban protects a bartender from work-related health threats would apply almost as well to a tobacconists assistant, right?
What about protecting people from their own smoking? If they’ve got to go outside to do it, they’re less likely to smoke, and more likely to be healthy. Plus it’ll discourage that community of people talking and smoking from even developing in the first place, thus serving to decrease smoking even further. Health all around!
Most ban proponents base their argument on people being involuntarily exposed to smoke in a way that’s incidental to their job or presence in a bar. That’s a hard case to make for employees and customers of cigar shops.
Matt, if you want to forcibly protect people from their own smoking, I will at least give you credit for being more honest and consistent in your position than most ban advocates.
HI!
I have to agree with your article. Smoke shops are a community of people who get together to do something they enjoy,its an atmosphere, people who work and who go there, do it because they love it. I don’t think the bill would really be protecting anyone, as you wouldn’t work in a cigar shop if you weren’t aware of the smoking involved. We have a cigar shop in AZ and we have an online sales site as well and I would hate for that to happen here.
Times are tough. Non-smokers who are concerned about their health may have no choice but to take a job in a smoke shop. Does their health not count for anything?
Well, I’m gonna be honest about it. I’ve got no problem with legislating health. I think it needs to be balanced out with the enjoyment of life (so that smoking itself shouldn’t be outright banned, nor should fatty foods, pop, or any of the other bad-for-you things), and that this particular manifestation of health legislation is stupid. But I don’t take issue with the goal of legislating health.
And I think that you’d be surprised at the number of people who’d agree that statement. I know that in my health law classes there seemed to be a large consensus that legislating health was hunky-dory. Of course, I went to a liberal law school.
Just to be clear — I’m against smoking bans, but I still think the logic is consistent. Being around smoke was not incidental to the job of a bartender — it was an integral part of every single bartending job until very recently (I’ve never heard of a free-market non-smoking bar). The law has changed the norm, and now smoking and bartending are two separate pursuits in many places.
The same will be true of smoking and working in a smoke shop, if this sort of law passes. It’s possible to sell tobacco without people smoking in the store, just as it’s possible to sell drinks in a bar without people smoking in the bar. If it’s geared towards the health of the employee, I don’t see any inconsistency in the logic.
I don’t disagree with you, actually. But most bans are sold to the public with the understanding that they’ll leave exceptions for smokers’ few havens. It’s politicians start eating away at even these exceptions that I question their motivations. (Actually I questioned their motivations long before this, but you know what I mean.)
The zealots that are pushing these bans pay many lobbyists good money for the “all or nothing” banning. After badgering your local lawmakers for their agenda, they’ll move on to another state or locality, like a traveling salesman. They have absolutly no concern about the local issues. Their money comes from the drug companies that sell cessation products through tax exampt charities. Remember this when considering donating to these charities. Here in chicago, after four months, the ban is ignored in many bars. If any fines are levied, most owners just consider it another cost of doing business, like a new tax.
Ohio, after a year of bans, is learning from their mistakes. http://www.western-star.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/05/01/ddn050108smoke.html#comments#comments