Common Arguments 
used by the tobacco industry and its allies 
when Clean Indoor Air is an issue

Assertion: Laws to regulate smoking should be passed at the state level. Creating a patchwork of local laws regulating smoking and nonsmoking in cities confuses people. It also creates a competitive disadvantage for restaurants in smoke-free cities that are adjacent to cities that have no such laws.

Rebuttal: Kansas has long recognized that local control, especially when it’s something as important as protecting public health, is preferable. That’s why Kansas’s laws regarding tobacco explicitly allow local governments to go beyond provisions of the state law. 

Assertion: A ban on smoking in restaurants immediately impairs a city’s ability to take full advantage of the tourism dollar.

Rebuttal: It’s ridiculous to suggest that smokers make recreational and vacation travel decisions based on which cities have smoke-free restaurant ordinances or not. Although hundreds of communities and several states have adopted smoke-free laws and regulations, numerous economic impact studies in those localities have shown conclusively that smoke-free laws do not hurt the bottom line.

Assertion: According to data from the National Restaurant Association, communities with indoor smoking bans experience a 6.5 percent decline in sales. Because most restaurants operate on an extremely narrow 3 percent profit margin, that could be enough to put some restaurants out of business. Other surveys in communities where smoking has been banned in restaurants show a 21 percent decline in employment within their hospitality businesses.

Rebuttal: Most of these kinds of surveys rely on predictions or estimates, and any hard economic data collected hasn’t been checked for accuracy. Numerous peer-reviewed studies, however, prove conclusively that community-wide smoke-free restaurant ordinances do not hurt the bottom line. The tobacco industry, working through its allies in the hospitality industry nationwide, seeks to scare communities into believing smoke-free policies have a negative impact on restaurants. The truth is, protecting people’s health from the dangers of secondhand smoke has no negative impact on business revenues. 

Assertion: People are not required to eat at restaurants. They can choose the environment in which they wish to dine. It isn’t fair to force restaurants to alienate a significant portion of their guests.  Although restaurants are technically “public places,” they are still owned by private citizens.

Rebuttal: I doubt Kansans would allow restaurants to voluntarily agree to sanitation standards or to fire safety standards. Secondhand smoke is deadly too. Keeping this dangerous indoor air pollution out of restaurants should not be “voluntary.”  People, especially those with asthma or respiratory disease, should not have to risk their health in any public place. 

Assertion: Recent polls show that restaurant and bar employees overwhelmingly oppose smoking bans. Most restaurant workers believe they have a right to decide for themselves whether or not to work in a smoking establishment. Anecdotally, many servers will tell you they receive better tips working in the smoking section. No one forces people to work in these businesses, and employees are aware that they’re going to be working in a smoking environment. It's their choice.

Rebuttal: Restaurant workers, many of whom are young people, are 50 percent more likely to develop cancer due to workplace exposure to secondhand smoke. Wait staff should not be forced to choose between their health and a job. Restaurant owners should have an interest in protecting their employees from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Nonsmoking workplace environments reduce the likelihood employees will get sick with illnesses that are very costly in terms of lost productivity and legal liabilities. 

Assertion: Many proponents say they support smoking bans to protect children. It is the parents’ responsibility to watch out for the well-being of their children, NOT the government's. If a parent feels that smoke in a restaurant is harmful to their children, they should ask to be seated in a different area. If they are not satisfied with the response, a letter to the owner or the threat of no longer dining there will go a long ways towards making improvements.

Rebuttal: Nonsmoking sections do not protect children or adults from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke . Asking to be seated in another area isn't the answer. Cancer-causing chemicals from smoke remain in the air even if they can't be seen or smelled. In fact, sitting in the nonsmoking section of a restaurant is equivalent to smoking 1-½ cigarettes. Everyone should have access to public places that are safe and healthy, especially children.

Assertion: There is no need for a ban. Restaurants can eliminate smoking now if they want to. They already are accommodating the needs of all of its guests and are  moving towards larger and larger non-smoking areas. Already a large number of Lawrence restaurants are smoke-free voluntarily. Let the consumer vote with his feet and pocketbook.

Rebuttal: The public would not want restaurants to voluntarily decide whether employees should wash their hands before preparing food or if water served to customers is fit to drink. Secondhand smoke contains thousands of poisons and nearly 50 cancer-causing chemicals. Keeping this dangerous indoor air pollution out of restaurants should not be “voluntary.” People should not have to risk their health in any public place. 

Assertion: Recently, a research company for the U.S. Department of Energy determined that the risk of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants is far less than first perceived and that the amount found in most restaurant establishments falls well below the danger levels set by OSHA and the EPA.

Rebuttal: The study referred to was funded by the tobacco industry.  It is false to suggest that OSHA or EPA have set standards for secondhand smoke. They have not.  In fact, the EPA has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, meaning there is no safe level of exposure. Every major scientific and medical organization – including the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association – agrees: Secondhand smoke is deadly. It kills 53,000 nonsmoking Americans every year. Only the tobacco industry continues to deny the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke.

Assertion: Secondhand smoke can be annoying and intrusive, and some people have allergic reactions or breathing problems associated with it. However, where do we draw the line? The city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, just voted to prohibit the wearing of all cosmetic fragrances (deodorant, herbal shampoos, colognes and other scented products) in most indoor public places...for the same reason!

Rebuttal: Secondhand smoke is deadly and kills thousands every year. It’s outrageous to suggest that secondhand smoke is just an “annoyance.”

Assertion: If smoking is deemed to be bad by the citizens of Lawrence or Douglas County, then they should ban smoking everywhere--in every home, car, golf course, bar, on the sidewalk...in every private place as well as in every public place. Targeting only the hospitality industry and alienating it unfairly is bad public policy.

Rebuttal: This is not about prohibition. Requiring smoke-free workplaces and restaurants doesn’t mean smokers cannot smoke. It just means they can’t do it where they will cause harm to the people around them. Smoking has always been a highly regulated act in public. We don’t allow smoking in movie theaters or on airplanes. Those industries haven’t been harmed, and no one claims that the movie industry or the airline industry has been “alienated.”