Local government as carpet burn remover?

I’m always suspicious of Internet testimonials from anonymous quarters. Nonetheless, here’s one from at-large councilman John Gonder’s blog ("Smoking Ordinance") that provides a bit more grist for the muddy scrum.

---

I am writing to express my opinion and experience with the smoking ban in Louisville. I own a restaurant with bar and am thrilled with the ban.

I know that the focus of New Albany’s ban is worker protection and I believe we have taken steps to protect our staff and our customers. I know we have fewer sick days due to respiratory ailments.

I know too our customers still thank us for the ban. I don't worry about seating children near the bar because of the smoke cloud that used to be there. Older patrons who used to vehemently complain about the smoke no longer do so. No one else seems to mind stepping outside to smoke and there are no complaints.

I do not believe the ban has hurt my business and could say it has helped. I would continue no
smoking should the city do away with its ordinance.

An added bonus--I paint less often and wash windows less. There are no burns in my carpet.

If Dublin, Ireland and New York City can do away with indoor smoking, so can we. These cities have long cultural traditions of smoky bars and yet have seen the light. Even New Orleans prohibits smoking in restaurants. Are we not as forward thinking as these places? Are we less concerned about the health and safety of our employees?

Thanks for the forum and good luck in passage of the ordinance.

---

When I first read these thoughts, there was an immediate and visceral reaction that I believe is quite relevant to the smoking discussion in New Albany.

Prior to the implementation of Louisville’s smoking ban, had there been a preexisting law requiring the restaurant owner quoted above to permit smoking?

Obviously not, but you’d be forgiven for thinking so by reading his or her account. To be blunt, why didn’t the owner in question act to eliminate the scourge of indoor smoking before the city intervened to make the action (or in this case, inaction) moot? There was no law against taking those carpet burns out of the equation. Why the timidity?

In fairness, the same question might be asked of me or any other restaurant/bar owner, with a crucial difference: I’m not publicly expressing gracious relief at finally being given governmental cover for something I might have done of my own impetus all along, if so resolved.

Note yet again that customer satisfaction is not the basis for proposed anti-smoking legislation here or elsewhere, but be aware that there is some measure of personal frustration in having spent the past three years reconfiguring my own establishment to please our customers (market forces -- remember those?) by providing expanded non-smoking seating, and in doing so, succeeding in large measure without recourse to the carrot-less stick wielded by a suddenly militant city council.

Small wonder, then, that to engage in debate about smoking is to be forced to reckon at some juncture with the concept of individual responsibility. It may not be the only angle, but it is one that matters. There is indeed a slippery slope to be navigated

I still haven’t received an answer to my query from the restaurant owner quoted here, although CM Gonder quickly responded with a deft defense of the writer's position that thoughtfully referenced virtue, freedom, Civil Rights and human bondage in a manner that would elude the understanding of at least two of his fellow council persons voting against the smoking ordinance. That is appreciated, though not in the same fashion as when coming straight from the horse’s mouth.

That's okay. I can easily guess where it came from.

Yesterday at work, we looked again at options for coping with a smoking ban in the sense of constructing comfortable “most weather” (i.e., rain and cold) outdoor smoke break facilities that comply with Indiana state alcohol laws and local fire codes. My co-conspirator Lloyd agreed to undertake the research, and what we learned is that our compliance expense in the short-term probably will be at least $2,000, and perhaps as much as double that sum. I’ll split the difference, and peg it at $3,000 for a temporary solution.

Multiply that by the number of establishments in the city (not in the county, which will be unaffected by the smoking ban), and you’ll arrive at a figure that hints at the cost of the legislation as incurred by at least some of my brethren in the business. I do not cite this as an objection, merely as a fact.

Too bad there is not a concept of carrot to accompany the stick in this matter. For some local operators, the money required to cope could well be a deal breaker.