While I was looking forward to participating in Waldo Crawldo last weekend, I was also pretty darn pumped to go out and celebrate the first night bars in Kansas City, MO were smoke-free. It was pretty awesome, I must say. In fact, there were several moments throughout the night when my friends turned to each other and made a comment about how great it was. It was pretty odd to be able to take a deep, clean breath in the normally smokey sports bars, breweries and dives.
I took time out this past Spring to vote for a smoking ban in area bars and restaurants. Since it passed by a fairly narrow margin, the ban has been one of the more divisive issues in Kansas City. Here are what seem to be the common arguments against the smoking ban and why I disagree with them:
Bar owners should be able to run their business the way they want. It should be up to them to allow smoking or not.
I’m all for owners being given rights to do what they want, but this is a matter of public health and safety. Bars and restaurants are inspected frequently to make sure they meet health codes. If a building had high radon levels, kitchen was full of rusty utensils, or cleaning supplies were consistently dirty, the bar would be be fined or shut down for health code violations. Believe it or not, you can get in trouble for simply leaving an ice scoop in with the ice behind the bar. If something that simple in considered a health hazard, it only makes sense for secondhand smoke to be eliminated.
Casinos were exempt from the ban which is unfair.
This one is unfair. Lobbyists shouldn’t have that much control over something like this. I don’t hang out in casinos, though, so it doesn’t really impact me either way. I have no problem with gambling or anything. I just would rather spend my time elsewhere. I’m surely not going to vote against a smoking ban because places I rarely ever visit can still smoke even though the places I do frequent will help my breathing.
A Smoking ban will hurt business for local restaurant and bar owners.
Places will adjust in due time. Bars that will close down are those that were already going through some problems. When I lived downtown, I went to The Quaff and Tanners more than just about any place in town, and I rarely ever saw Tanner’s full. In fact, the place was pretty dead on weekends more often than not, and that was before the Power and Light District was built. It’s sad to hear it’s closing down, but I’m not surprised by it. Plus, if you want to point the finger at the P&L for dealing Tanner’s its death blow, it should be noted that the P&L was smoke-free from day one. Obviously, having a smoking ban hasn’t negatively impacted one of the most popular bar areas in town.
If people can drink as much as they want in bars, smokers should be able to smoke as much as they want in bars, as well.
If there was no such thing as secondhand smoke I would agree with this argument. That isn’t the case, though. Me having a beer doesn’t negatively impact your health in any way. If cigarettes worked that way, you could chain smoke all you wanted and I wouldn’t care. Just don’t try to kiss me after doing it, though. A dry-heaving Bradical is not a good sight.
Kansas City is is forcing bars and restaurants to create smoking areas even though many of them don’t have room for them outside.
While I do feel for bar owners about this one, I find this argument incredibly naive. Anyone who says this clearly hasn’t been outside of Kansas City in a long time. Almost every single large city in the US has already banned smoking from bars. Kansas City is WAY behind on this compared to other areas around the country. And you know what? It’s worked out fine. When I visit friends in other parts of the US, they just go outside to smoke without even thinking about it. It’s not a big deal at all to them. If a congested area like Manhattan can find ways to accommodate smokers outside bars, I’m pretty sure Kansas City can do the same.
Cigar bars are almost certainly going to have to close their doors.
One of my favorite bars in Kansas City is the Cigar Box, and I’d hate to see something happen to that place even though I really do believe the place could do just fine without even having cigars. It isn’t uncommon for bars in cities with smoking bans to create “private memberships” that allow smoking in their place. It’s a loophole to get around the law (although I haven’t exactly read the exact wording with the ban, I can’t imagine KC is any different), and I can see it working just fine.
Non-smokers just need to deal with it. Bars are smokey and they always have been.
Listen, I have asthma. When I’m around smoke, I notice it. It’s really annoying to watch someone ruin their perfectly fine lungs while I have to take an inhaler twice a day just to breathe normally. Would I make someone with liver problems to periodically drink sips of my alcoholic beverage when I’m out socializing? Absolutely not. If there was anything I was doing that I knew was harming anyone else there was no way I would consider doing it around that person. Smokers should have the same mentality…and be grateful smoking wasn’t banned completely like on airplanes.
So yeah, I’m glad bars are smoke-free. I think it’s something that will increase overall health with people my age. I would love for someone to put together a convincing argument to try to understand their point of view, but I just can’t see how anyone would think allowing smoking in bars would make sense.