That's the thing, though. The restaurant owner should be able to decide whether or not to allow smoking in his or her establishment. And you, the patron, should also be able to decide whether or not you want to go to an establishment that you know allows smokers, or choose one that does not.
Across the board banning is heavy handed and all around stupid. And this coming from someone who fucking hates cigarette smoke.
Except the issue around 'banning smoking in restaurants' isn't prevalent because of the economics of the patrons but the health and safety of the workers. As an employer, you don't get to choose which legislation you get to follow around health and safety. If your employees are exposed to environments which will significantly affect their health, you are required by law to ensure that those risks are mitigated and/or removed completely. As a patron of smoking establishments, I feel gross. As an employee of a smoking establishment, I can only imagine what spending 8 hours a day in that environment would do. It's no less damaging than slight exposure to asbestos, and we certainly wouldn't be arguing "It's up to the company whether or not to use Asbestos in their establishment."
All of this said, there are many, many ways around this legislation including having designated, well-ventilated smoking rooms, comfortable patios, etc.
I always found it curious that most serving staff at restaurants were smokers. Then I realized that at least when they're personally smoking, they are breathing in the smoke through a filter.
Let's add some stats here too:
Heavily exposed service industry employees, such as bartenders, inhale the equivalent of smoking 1.5 to 2 packages of cigarettes a day, according to a fact sheet prepared by British Columbia's Capital Region District.
Food service workers are 50 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer than the general population. Waitresses have the highest mortality of any occupational group, with four times the expected deaths from lung cancer and 2.5 times the expected mortality from heart disease.
Now there's evidence that smoking bans can improve the lung health of hospitality industry workers. When California passed a law prohibiting smoking in bars and taverns effective January 1 1998, University of California researchers launched a study. Examining 53 San Francisco bartenders, they found that 59 per cent of those reporting respiratory problems before the ban went into effect were symptom-free less than two months after the prohibition began.
Source:
http://www.sk.lung.ca/ca/articles/smokingbans.html
A significant body of scientific research has been accumulated on the economic impact of smoking bans on hospitality business, particularly bars and restaurants. The only research that shows any long-term negative effect on bar or restaurant sales is unscientific research that has been sponsored by the tobacco companies.
All independent published studies conducted in the US and Canada that used tax data in the analysis concluded that "smoking restrictions do not impact negatively on hospitality sales, employment, or tourism activity in the long run."
* An analysis of restaurant sales in 235 Massachusetts communities before and after the implementation of a smoking ban found no difference in aggregate sales.
* A study of the impact of no-smoking ordinances on hotel revenues and international tourism in 3 states (California, Utah, and Vermont) and 6 cities (Boulder, Flagstaff, Los Angeles, Mesa, New York and San Francisco) found that tourism increased in four localities, and stayed the same in four others.
* A study on the impact of New York City's smoke-free ordinance on restaurants found that real taxable sales from eating and drinking increased over levels two years earlier. Restaurant sales increased 2.1% in NYC, while decreasing 3.8% in the same time period in the rest of the state.4 Another study of the NYC smoking ban found that although smokers were eating out less, non-smokers were eating out much more and restaurant revenues increased.
* A study of bar patronage conducted 2.5 years after smoking was banned in California bars found that 91% of bar customers were either going to bars more often or had not changed their behaviour as a result of the law. Furthermore, support for the ban among smokers increased dramatically from 24% to 44%.
* A study of the economic impact of the short-lived province-wide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants in BC found a short term decline in alcohol sales in hotels, pubs, and dining establishments. By the second month of the ban, however, the impact was no longer statistically significant.
* To assess the impact of the smoking ban on the Capital Region District in BC a study was conducted using liquor purchase data. A short-term statistically significant decline of 6.4% was found. The long-term impacts were not statistically significant. A separate analysis of establishments in the CRD but outside the City of Victoria was done to eliminate the impact of tourism. The results likewise showed that the long-term impacts were not significant.
Source:
http://www.tobaccotoolkit.ca/Tobacco_toolkit/Economicimpact.html
...Well, I don't know what's typical at all.
