I found out through Rox Populi that Austin, Texas is putting up for a vote a measure to ban smoking in most public places. Smokers, such as the ones at Pandagon [Edit: that link doesn't seem to have survived Pandagon's reorganization, but there is an Internet Archive copy available] and Norbizness are already ranting about it, making the usual claims that it is going to destroy the economy, kill off live music, and is a violation of smokers' rights, along with the somewhat less usual claims that the worker health issues are unimportant because they're just the cover for the evil liberal commie non-smoker agenda to burn smokers at the stake and tear down the rock music scene, after taking away all their pot and setting fire to their SUVs.

Okay, to be fair, Amanda at Pandagon recanted on the political claims, the Norbizness entry is very tongue-in-cheek for humor value (I hope), and I'm exaggerating somewhat wildly for the same reason. Let me also concede up front that there are sufficiently good points raised about the specific case of the proposed total ban in Austin that I would probably vote against it myself, even though I'm a non-smoker, but I will get to that later. Let's go back to the economic and legal rights angle, though, since there really is enough evidence out there to make some strong statements, and in addition to my allergy to tobacco smoke, I have an even stronger allergy to bad science.

The Bad Arguments

The problem is that there are no credible, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support a claim of economic damage. There are a number of studies that show that, overall, smoking bans don't hurt the hospitality industry at all. The studies also aren't specific to California, as some have claimed: one study even covers El Paso, Texas, which sufficiently similar in region to Austin as to completely negate the local environment factor. The one concern I've seen raised about these studies that I am inclined to keep an eye on is that they ignore pool halls, bowling alleys, and bingo parlors, which may take severe economic impact (though I note that the Austin proposal explicity excludes bingo parlors). I haven't been able to confirm or deny that, yet, not having had time to go dig through all of the studies personally, but since the same sources that claim that also claim that the studies don't account for bars, which is absolutely untrue, and since they also fail to list the studies they are complaining about, I'm also not inclined to give such claims great credibility up front. The "studies" in opposition claiming grave financial damage to an area generally consist of a slew of anecdotal reports of businesses where the owners claim to have closed the business or lost sales because of a smoking ban.

This is not science; it's not even very compelling, given the scarcity of examples compared to the number of bars in the areas affected. Let's concede up front, however, that if your business is doing badly, living from month to month away from foreclosure, a sharp drop involved with the smoking ban in the period between the time where smokers stop coming and non-smokers start replacing them may do you in. Let me say on behalf of those few business owners that fell off the edge because of anti-smoking laws, I'm sorry. It sucks to lose what you've built. But you're not the majority; most small business fail for completely unrelated reasons, and on top of that, you're killing people.

That brings us to health and the right to choose: despite the long-laid plans of the tobacco industry to attempt to discredit the reports of health agencies with junk science or out of context quoting, there is also significant evidence that secondhand smoke kills people. Forcing a potential worker to choose between being able to pay for food and housing for a family today or avoiding asthma, emphysema, or lung cancer later is one of those truly evil scenarios that a good society is supposed to make vanishingly unlikely. Also, as much as smokers protest that they're trying to preserve access to live music, not all musicicians or their audiences are smokers.

Anecdote time, since I'm only illustrating a point and not pretending to be a scientific study: I'm a non-smoker with a strong physicial reaction to smoke. I get asthma and become dizzy and nauseous after enough exposure. My girlfriend is also a non-smoker who is thankfully not quite as vulnerable, but smoke still makes her sick. We wanted to attend a concert of They Might Be Giants at a local bar that allowed smoking. I was really, really nervous about this, but I also really wanted to see them. The ventilation in the place turned out to be horribly insufficient. We managed to last through the performance of the opening band by standing directly underneath an air conditioning vent and alternating between stepping into the flow and freezing, but breathing, with warming up just outside of its range but breathing shallowly. By the time They Might Be Giants got onstage, the place was thick with smoke to the point where it became a haze. The sickly sweet smell of pot had started to intermingle with the tobacco, which oddly enough actually helped my physical reaction some, though it probably would have been bad if someone had decided to require a drug test at my workplace in the following few months. We held out through the first two songs, but then finally just had to abandon the concert.

Since that time, there have been a number of concerts at various places that I would have enjoyed, but could not attend because they permitted smoking. A failure to ban smoking in a concert area is tantamount to banning many non-smokers from the concert. At worst, a smoking ban forces the smokers to step outside during the break for a smoke or bring a nicotine patch along; even the worst nicotine druggies should be able to make it through a concert without discomfort that way. There is no equivalent remedy for non-smokers that would like to avoid the harmful effects of smoke in a smoky room, particularly those that have to work in that environment every day. I am very thankful that although smoking is permitted in Chicago's Steakhouse, which hosts my favorite local artist (Beth Patterson) from time to time, it is confined to the bar, in a room separate from the one with the stage, and if you don't sit close to the door, you can mostly avoid the smoke.

The Good Arguments

My situation locally isn't comparable to the situation in Austin, where there actually already is a law restricting smoking. As a result, 99% of businesses in Austin are smoke-free, if the numbers at Keep Austin Free are to be believed (something else that completely undercuts the theory of economic disaster — if the Austin business landscape was to be affected by a smoking ban, that would have already happened, which it obviously hasn't). In terms of the hospitality industry, the number seems to hold true for restaurants and concert areas that allow minors, though only two thirds of bars. The argument, therefore, that there is sufficient market availability to protect the rights of both smokers and non-smokers is actually very compelling. What is coming up for a vote on May 7 is aimed at that last one-third of bars, and the last 1% of most other places. Assuming that there isn't a great disparity in overall quality between the smoking and non-smoking bars (Kriston at Grammar Police seems to have concerns that such bars are "health bars" with a completely different aim and, if you will forgive the pun, atmosphere), I'd be willing to concede that this ratio is already appropriate to handle both those that want to go somewhere for a drink and socialization without getting caught by smoke, and those who want someplace to socialize with other smokers or listen to live music — or those that want jobs at either style of bar. As I've said before, I'm actually okay with people deciding to poison themselves, even though I have to share in the burden of paying for their health care costs, as long as they aren't poisoning anyone who doesn't want to join in. As a strong believer in Darwin, I find that protecting people against their will is generally a bad social policy (though I'd admittedly be happier if I didn't have to subsidize their medical expenses, something that I suspect smokers would scream even more loudly about if it ever came to pass).

Also, I find uncompelling the arguments (that Kriston also makes) that making the requirement a choice between forbidding smoking completely or providing adequate ventilation to prevent employees and customeres from being exposed to smoke places an undue burden on small businesses. If it were true that the hospitality industry was suffering badly because of the smoking ban, then I could see the argument as valid, if somewhat perverse, that the entire industry should suffer equally to protect American Entrepreneurship. Since it isn't, I have to conclude that if a business can offset the (not inconsiderable) costs of an extremely powerful ventilation system with the additional business brought in from smokers, they should be allowed. Small businesses can simply keep doing what they're doing now: making money off of the non-smokers.

So I think this is a bad law. It's probably unnecessary overall, and if the greater community thinks that public health concerns should trump individual addictions, those concerns can also be satisfied by allowing bars to come up with their own solutions short of a complete ban.

But I note in conclusion that this isn't a law being passed by some politician, placing the convictions of a small number of people above the will of the people; this is a bill in front of the Austin community, and the Austin community gets to vote on it. If the smoking community, along with those that benefit from it, is as large and economically significant as some are claiming, they should have no difficulty defeating this.

If you're opposed and not so certain of your overwhelming superiority, however, feel free to pass this along to people you're trying to convince to vote no; the fact that even a non-smoker who's hostile to smokers will side with you may be compelling. But please, lay off the economic doomsday or political conspiracy theories. Non-smokers aren't trying to conspire behind a mere facade of health concerns to take away your cigarettes or shut down the economy.

We just don't like you blowing smoke.