Don’t need no stinkin’ bans!

Posted by Jacob on Jan. 5, 2009

Chad Wilcox sends in a blog post noticing that bars and restaurants in Arlington, VA (where I lived for most of the past five years) are trending smokefree in the absence of legislation:

They said Arlington’s bars would never voluntarily go smoke-free … then Liberty Tavern did and places like Eleventh, Union Jacks, and Clarendon Grill soon followed.

They said sports bars would never go smoke-free … then Summers created a separate smoke-free bar, followed by Four Courts and Crystal City Sports Pub, and Thirsty Bernie’s opened entirely smoke-free.

Now Arlington’s best diner, Bob & Edith’s at Columbia Pike & S. Wayne St., is going 100% smoke-free.

Arlington makes an interesting test case. It’s one of the wealthiest, most liberal cities in the country, and residents would surely approve a smoking ban if they were allowed to. Fortunately they’re restrained by Virginia law that forbids local anti-smoking ordinances to exceed the state’s own rules. Every year a statewide ban is introduced in the senate and immediately shot down by the tobacco-friendly house.

The fact that popular bars and established restaurants are voluntarily choosing to restrict smoking shows that ban opponents have been right all along: given demand for smokefree environments, profit-seeking business owners will eventually provide them, if not as immediately as a legislative ban would. And as someone who generally prefers bars with clean air, I think that’s fantastic — as long as dive bars like Jay’s or the backroom cigar lounge at EatBar remain free to set their own policies too.

The same has been true in my new home of Portland, OR, another city one might have expected to institute a smoking ban long ago. Even before the statewide ban went into effect last week I noticed there were far more smokefree bars here than in other places I’ve lived. I checked the directory at SmokeFreeOregon.com and the site listed more than 400 establishments within the city limits. That was hardly a lack of choice for non-smokers.

At best, one could make the case for nudging businesses to go smokefree with one-time tax breaks to speed up adoption of the policy. Otherwise, leave people free to associate on their own terms and they’ll eventually figure out ways to accommodate each other. There’s no need for coercion.

Response to comments 1/10/09: Several people note in the comments that this trend has been accelerated by bans in other jurisdictions changing people’s expectations. I have no doubt that this is true. But that makes the case for a ban in Virginia weaker, not stronger. And the same is true for DC. Now that residents have had several years of smokefree bars, the city should lift the ban; there will be many fewer bars that revert to allowing smoking than there were prior to it.

The main point to take away from this is that comprehensive smoking bans are overkill. Softer policies can encourage the development of smokefree markets while still respecting the rights of business owners and smokers, who happen to be people too.

For another post about why I think that demand for smokefree bars is politically overstated, see here.

Tagged: , , , ,

  • generalsn
    After seeing the movie "Valkyrie" it's easy to see why Germany repealed their ban, a law that depends on friends and neighbors snitching on each other. The ban worked against their efforts ot erase the memories of Hitler. Destroying his bunker was being overridden by the ban.
  • Cannoneo
    I would speculate that this trend could not have happened without smoking bans elsewhere. People of the class that has grown in Arlington have come to expect mainly smoke-free atmospheres indoors.
  • Wayne
    I don't believe for a minute that this would have happened if not for other jurisdictions -- nearby, in fact -- mandating these bans. It's exactly this kind of enforced ban in one place that leads patrons to realize that they have a choice (and can choose to go to a smoke-free bar, because FINALLY one exists), and business owners to realize that all the talk about declining business (which inevitably surfaces whenever such laws are discussed) is total bunk. Thus, once the ball is rolling, owners realize that their downside is minimal, and in fact their upside is potentially large -- because patrons have already realized that they prefer smokefree bars.

    But in the absence of regulations altogether...? Let's see: People have complained about smoke in bars since the dawn of smoke and bars, yet somehow smokefree bars were essentially non-existent until some places started enforcing bans. Then, and only then, did this miraculous "gentle hand" effect work at all. Because prior to that point, patrons didn't have any choice, and owners didn't want to take any risks.
  • Mark
    Not to pile on, but the first time I went to a restaurant in California (1998) and asked for a non-smoking table, the hostess looked at me like I was crazy. Given that restaurants and bars had vehemently opposed any kind of ban for so long, citing loss of revenue, it had never occurred to me that an entire jurisdiction could ban it.

    Only now that 1) it's obvious there's no loss of revenue to bar and restaurant owners; and 2) the general public (which has long been majority non-smoking) knows that smoking can be banned, would more than a handful of establishments move to ban smoking voluntarily.
  • I'm in the middle of fighting the smoking ban in Indiana. So far I think my establishment may be able to work out a pardon... yea right
blog comments powered by Disqus