Print |
E-mail to a friend
OPINIONS
Editorial: Smoking bans for bars get more common across country
West Virginia has one of the highest rates of smokers in the United States, so it was no surprise that a move to extend Cabell County's smoking ban to bars and gambling parlors met strong opposition.
The board of the Cabell-Huntington Health Department approved the regulation in January to take effect March 1, but Cabell Circuit Judge Jane Hustead issued a temporary injunction late last week to allow time to hear the concerns of bars, video lottery parlors and veterans organizations.
Understandably, they fear the ban will hurt business.
But at a hearing Thursday, Hustead ruled to lift the injunction and allow the new countywide indoor smoking regulation to begin.
Hustead made the right call and for the right reason.
"I have to look at the overall well-being of this community," she said.
Many local governments and about 26 states have extended indoor smoking bans to include bars and clubs, and there is research and arguments on both sides of the question of whether it hurts business for those establishments.
Local club owners say their smoking customers already have told them they will head to Wayne and Putnam counties, where no such bans exist. Studies in other states, however, show there was no measurable effect. Business might dip initially, yet over time, on-premise alcohol sales remained as high as before the bans.
But over the past decade, the evidence on the dangers of second-hand smoke has continued to mount. Today, it is very difficult to ignore.
The Centers for Disease Control report there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke, and it causes numerous health problems for children and adults.
Nonsmokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke at home, at work or in public places increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25-30 percent, studies show, and secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 46,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers.
Some critics of the ban say it is the work of power-hungry, do-gooders with a disregard for personal freedom -- the architects of a "nanny state." But it seems more likely that is the result of reasonable people, looking at the medical research and following the mission of the board to protect the public health.
That has been the national dilemma since the real dangers of tobacco use were first publicized in the 1960s. How do you balance personal liberties with a known health danger?
Clearly, some people resent the restrictions over the past 30 years that have helped push smoking rates down to less than 20 percent of adults in the United States (26 percent in West Virginia). But how many would really turn back the clock to the 1950s, when an estimated 44 percent of the adult population smoked?
Eliminating smoking in clubs and bars is a difficult step, but second-hand smoke is no less dangerous there than in a restaurant.
