The idea that bars will be forced to close because of the smoking ban is utterly unconvincing. In other cities where smoking bans were enacted, post-ban bar profits went up. There are more people unwilling to go into the smoke-filled bars as they exist today than there are smokers unwilling to go into smoke-free areas.
It is also foolhardy to assert that smokers who light up in bars would choose not to frequent the smokeless bars. Smoking, like television, is an activity that can be done at home, at any time. Listening to live music is the real draw of the bar scene - not ubiquitous cigarettes - and someone who'd miss out on listening to Austin's live music because they'd rather stay home and light up a cigarette is a pretty sad sack.
Ignoring the very real concern about the health risks of secondhand smoke, cigarette smoke literally stinks. A cigarette smoke ban is a good idea for much the same reason that a ban on skunks or rotted garbage is a good idea. Cigarette smoke, in addition to olfactory unpleasantness, has a physical aspect as well. Those nearby smokers cough and find it harder to breathe.
This is the classic case of "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
This is not a restriction of freedom. Speech, though often harmful, does not have a physical component unless your speech is designed to incite someone to violence. Secondhand smoke causes discomfort, and for some sensitive folks, pain. This is not something that can be ignored, like an insult or a racist joke - this is physical assault upon the lungs by someone who can't be bothered to care.
This is not condescending paternalism or legislating morality. It does not ban smoking - it bans the practice of smoking in enclosed, crowded places. The concern is not that smokers stop doing harm to themselves. The concern is that they stop harming others.
This is not about libertarian views on drug policy. It is a good idea to allow people to smoke, ingest, snort or shoot up those drugs moderately harmful to themselves so long as doing so is not harmful to others. But smoking in a bar is harmful to others - indeed, legalized private consumption of marijuana would pose less of a health risk than the public consumption of tobacco does now.
Opponents of the ban say, "No one has a gun to their heads forcing them to frequent a smoking bar." Tell that to bartenders and wait staff who need to work in bars to make the rent.
And while it's true that the right to sample Austin's live music scene is not enshrined in the Texas Constitution, it is aggravating that people are using the "gun to the head" argument when smoking in bars forces away people who would otherwise enjoy, support and encourage the music that makes Austin great.
I endorse voting "yes" on this proposition.
Brian Boyko is a member of The Daily Texan's editorial board, and is dissenting from the Texan's opinion on this issue.
Be the first to comment on this article!