Despite Previous Defeat, Kirkwood Tries Again for Smoking Ban
Despite voting down a similar proposition two and a half years ago, Kirkwood residents will again in November face a decision of whether to ban smoking in public places, the Post-Dispatch reports.
Opposition to the ban is summed up well within the article:
Mike Duffy, a restaurant owner and president of the Kirkwood restaurant association, declared the ban “is not good for the citizens of Kirkwood. Citizens vote with their money to go to restaurants,” he said. “If they don’t want to go to a place (that allows smoking), they will go someplace else.”
To read previous Show-Me Institute discussions about smoking bans, look at these blog posts, or Show-Me Institute policy analyst Dave Roland’s testimony about a similar ban before the Clayton City Council.
At least there isn’t a state or city/county ban. That way the cities that pass these silly things can be effectively punished and see the error of their ways.
Comment by Joe Nonnenkamp — June 24, 2009 @ 9:57 a.m.
going to duffys more often
Comment by vroman — June 24, 2009 @ 10:57 a.m.
This is certainly not a straighforward issue. There are health issues that extend beyond the patrons. The workers in the establishment have a higher risk of many kinds of respiratory ailments. This has been evaluated in multiple localities which enacted smoke free ordinances, and there are significantly fewer illness in those same employees 6 months after enactment of the ban. In several cities, the incidence of cardiac disease decreasely significantly after smoking bans were enacted.
There are multiple other confounding issues with tobacoo policy. The federal government continues to give subsidies to tobacco farmers. It makes absolutely no sense to me for us to incentivize the growth of tobacco while at the same time penalizing the end users of the product through taxes and bans on where they can enjoy the product (unless our intention is to export almost all of the tobacco to other countries).
Comment by Bill H — June 25, 2009 @ 4:28 p.m.
decreasely significantly is just my way of saying “decreased significantly”
Comment by Bill H — June 25, 2009 @ 4:30 p.m.
Potential employees have the same ability to turn down a job at an establishment that allows smoking as potential costumers have to patronize a different business. Nobody is being forced to work in a job that they think damages their health — working there is fully discretionary behavior.
And you can certainly count me as solidly opposed to industry subsidies of all stripes.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 25, 2009 @ 4:45 p.m.