California Smoking Ban of 1998: a Closer Look

Introduction

In 1998, Drew Carey held a sit-in to protest the smoking ban in California bars. Although Drew is not a smoker, he smoked that night and called the ban "stupid." Three years earlier, California enacted a state law that forbade smoking in bars and other work areas for the sake of employees' health. Drew felt that "It should be up to each bar owner and patron to decide if they want to smoke or not." Drew Carey was not cited by police for the incident, but the owner, Irwin Held, was. Held remarked, "It's smoking today; tomorrow it will be beer, and the next day liquor. Hopefully, they'll rescind the ban and give people freedom of choice" (Carey & Held, 1998). Smokers are losing their rights. If nothing is done to stop it, the government will be taking away all of the people's rights. It may not make sense to believe such a fallacious statement, but if one person's rights are threatened, then the rights of all will be threatened at some point.

The Origins of the California Smoking Ban

The California law came about when bartenders and other employees complained about breathing problems and eye irritations. Many people who have been around smoke do experience these issues, but secondhand smoke is not as dangerous as once thought. By examining a study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO), one might understand why. Secondhand smoke has long been believed to contribute to thousands of deaths by lung cancer. However, the WHO issued an article in March 1998 stating that smoking did not cause lung cancer as previously thought and secondhand smoke might even have a protective effect on the lungs (Dougherty, 1998). Thus, the push to make smokers quit is no longer understandable, and taking smokers' rights away from them is absurd.

Bar Owners and Government Intervention

If the bartenders of California do not want smoke in the bars, then they should be allowed to put up signs and address the problem themselves. On the other hand, if they do not care about the smoke, then it should not be up to the government to make it illegal. Two and a half years after the ban was put into effect, there were no smoking violations cited against bar owners. People have complained about the ineffective law, but to no avail. There is no point to the law. The bar owner is entirely capable of enforcing it, but since half of them are smokers, they probably do not care.

Historical Context and Current Trends

Remembering back to the 1930s, Prohibition may come to mind. It first started with a few places not being allowed to have alcohol, then it spread throughout the rest of the country. It remained for several years, initially causing a decrease in consumption, and then a dramatic increase. Smoking is now following the same pattern. In Superior, Colorado, smoking has been banned from restaurant patios (Associated Press, 2000). In Eugene, Oregon, smoking was banned from all cafes and diners, and adult-only bars, taverns, lounges, and bingo parlors will be considered in November (The Sunday Oregonian, 2000). Smokers are being forced outside to find their right to the pursuit of happiness. At Penn State, outside smoking will not even be allowed because it litters the ground too much (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2000). Soon, smokers are going to be outlawed altogether. They surely do not need rights.

Public Health and Personal Freedom

"Children and their families should be able to play sports, eat in picnic areas, and play in sandboxes, free of cigarette butts and smoke," said Pat Etem, executive director of the Los Angeles Regional Tobacco Control Community Linkage Project. That is a valid point, but how much does a cigarette, being smoked outside, truly affect one person?

A few studies have shown that the ban on smoking in California bars did cause an increase in bartenders' health. The University of California conducted a study on the effect of reducing secondhand smoke on bartenders. They found that many of them experienced less irritation and fewer respiratory symptoms. However, almost half of the bartenders in the study were smokers (Topeka Capital Journal, 2000).

Granted, Penn State has a point about cigarette butts littering the campus, but that should indicate that more places are needed to dispose of the butts, not that smokers are bad and must be punished. If the complaint is for the children's sake, then it would not be unreasonable to establish smoking areas so families can avoid them and enjoy their smoke-free air. Of course, it is essential for employees to be able to work without the added problem of secondhand smoke, but if they have a serious problem, then the bar owner should consider it and act upon it. Smoking should not be up to the government to decide.

Conclusion

Smokers must have a place to smoke; it cannot be outlawed altogether because that is a violation of their rights. There needs to be a smoking section for every baseball game, workplace, restaurant, beach, and park. If secondhand smoke is not the issue because it is not as harmful, then there is no reason to infringe on others' rights. Every nonsmoker needs to be a political smoker and stand up for the rights of the American people. If they do not, then the people will no longer have rights and will be controlled by the government.

References

• Associated Press. (2000, November 7). Smoking banned from restaurant patios in Superior. AP News.
• Carey, D., & Held, I. (1998). In Los Angeles Times.
• Dougherty, S. (1998). WHO study on secondhand smoke. World Health Organization.
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (2000). Smoking restrictions at Penn State. A01.
• The Sunday Oregonian. (2000). Smoking bans in Eugene, Oregon.
• Topeka Capital Journal. (2000). Study on bartenders' health post-smoking ban.