Austinist Debates the Smoking Ban So You Don't Have To, Part I: For

Opponents of the ban, for example, talk about what a bad effect this is going to have on local bars and restaurants. (Austinist finds the implication that people should act contrary to their own interests in order to support the local economy troubling in itself. Are we guilty of civic sin because we don’t eat Amy’s ice cream twice a day?)

In any case, there is no hard evidence to support the contention that the smoking ban will hurt the local economy. In some places that have adopted bans in the past few years, bar and restaurant revenues declined post-ban—but whether that was caused by the ban or by a more general economic downturn is not clear. In other places, bar and restaurant revenues increased post-ban—again, the causal relationship, if any, is not clear. One of the most in-depth studies was completed by the Center for Disease Control about El Paso, which has “the strongest smoke-free indoor air ordinance in Texas." They concluded that “no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect.”

The lack of statistical evidence to support the argument coexists happily with the lack of logic that informs the argument. Supposedly, smokers will be so dismayed by the prospect of walking outside the bar to smoke that, in a fit of pique, they’ll just stay home and spend no money at all. This is sociologically bizarre. Smokers, as a group, are not known for their ability to abruptly quit a habit.

In other words, we think the ostensible concern for the local economy is not valid. But if it were valid—if the smoking ban will cause smokers to stop going to bars, hurting our local economy—we don’t understand why that would be the fault of the smoking ban. In fact, it seems to us that it would be the fault of the sulking smokers.

Not to worry. Austinist is confident that smokers will, if faced with a smoking ban, screw their courage to the wall, do their patriotic duty, and keep going to bars.

Another reason people say they oppose the smoking ban is that it violates civil liberties. According to the CDC, the average daily smoker smokes 18 cigarettes per day, which implies a physiological and psychological addiction. So compared to how a smoker has already infringed on his own freedom, asking him to step outside to exercise his not-free will is hardly a violation worthy of the name. What’s more, Austinist thinks it’s pretty squirrelly to try to put “smoking in a confined space” on the same plane as, say, “freedom of speech.”

This brings us to another reason to support the smoking ban. Consider this repellingly sanctimonious April 8 editorial in the Chronicle from Louis Black.

“Club owners are very stressed over the possible consequences of the proposed smoking ban,” he writes. “Even if they are wrong, why is this community creating more stress for them, rather than finding ways of supporting them?”

Austinist is very stressed over the possible consequences for impressionable young minds of having the frazzled emotional state of a small group of people presented as a political argument. Even if we are wrong, why is the Austin Chronicle creating more stress for us, rather than finding ways to cater to our every wrong-headed demand?

Elsewhere, Black has this gem: “If you support the smoking ban, don’t pretend you want to keep Austin weird. You may well love Austin, but you’re willing to sacrifice some of its character for greater concerns.”

Philip Morris and Austin, working together to defend our city’s character from the corrupting influence of major corporations like Philip Morris. Good point, Louis!

Opponents of the smoking ban have no compelling economic, philosophical or scientific justification for their stance. So some, like Black, are trying to exploit our common values—freedom, independence, individuality, community—to make their case. That’s pretty contemptible, if you ask Austinist.

We look forward to voting for the smoking ban on Saturday. It will be good for Austin’s health, neutral for its economy, and negative for its purveyors of empty rhetoric.

The opposing point of view will be presented by another Austinist later in the day. In the meantime, what do you think?