Smoking In Restaurants:
Part Two: The Solution
By Lloyd M. Gordon, President
GEC Consultants, Inc.
Skokie, IL 60076
In communities nationwide when suggestions are made by local governments to ban smoking in restaurants, a great outpouring of controversy arises. Some say that when restaurants function in the capacity of a bar or lounge, it should be possible to permit less stringent smoking regulations than in the more traditional sit-down type of restaurants. It's also suggested that since a total or even partial ban on smoking would have various economic impact on different types of restaurants.
Some suggest that there should be different classes of restaurant licenses with each class having various rights to allow smoking on the premises. The purpose of the recategorization of liquor licenses would be to delineate a class of licenses which would permit smoking on the premises. Other liquor license holders and non liquor establishments would be held to higher standards of regulation, including a possible total ban on smoking. This assumes that there is a logical connection between liquor licenses and smoking.
The problem occurs for the selection of which liquor establishments would be permitted to have smoking sections. Since the size of the establishment and the resulting ability to separate smokers from nonsmokers appears to be a major issue, it follows that only restaurants with substantial seating capacity would be able to permit smoking.
A new category of liquor licenses?
The new categorization of liquor licenses based on whether the establishment functions principally as a bar as opposed to a restaurant would be contrary to many specific local codes if the codes reference that the service of alcohol be dependent on the service of food.
A new category of bar smoking for many restaurants would result in a prolification of such establishments. In many places in the United States a complete ban on smoking in public places including restaurants has been in effect for one or more years.
In Maryland the law and regulation governing smoking in the workplace results in 90% of employees working in Maryland are guaranteed protection from second hand smoke. In Illinois, the state law exempts these employees most at risk for example waiters, waitresses, bartenders and food service staff from protections.
Statistics disclose that food service workers are 50% more likely to develop lung cancer than office workers simply because of the daily exposure to second hand smoke. Realizing that hospitality workers were left unprotected, Illinois state law does provide that local governments can pass stronger workplace smoking laws than the state.
Nationwide, many bills to eliminate smoking completely in all eating and drinking facilities have been defeated due to pressure from the state restaurant associations, the state licensed beverage industry and the Phillip Morris front group The National Smokers Alliance (NSA)". These organizations, particularly the NSA, use misinformation campaigns to scare local politicians from voting for any strong anti-smoking bills. These tactics include:
- Misleading opinion surveys which they pass off as economic reality
- Emotional testimony from legitimately intimidated restaurant owners, (who are falsely educated by the tobacco industry), and
- Statements from smokers who claim they will never eat out again in their city or county that passes a law like that.
Although it is realized that these are stale arguments, the arguments presented by the NSA have little validity and are meant to mislead. Public policy should be based on fact, not opinion. The facts are these:
- Second hand smoke is a known workplace hazard proven to kill and cause illness.
- Second hand smoke can be easily eliminated from the workplace environment without causing undo enforcement burden or economic harm.
- Most people favor smoke-free workplaces and dining facilities.
Much has been said about segregated smoking and nonsmoking areas. This is only partially effective if the two rooms are separated and each room has its own HVAC system. These rooms should be separated by a solid wall, glass, wood, etc. with two HVAC systems, one for the smoking section and one for the nonsmoking section. This arrangement will provide the most effective means to separate areas within the same building. Depending on the level of smoke free air desired by the designer, they would also have to consider the types of doors and door closures and any openings between the two rooms.
Since commercial HVAC units have fresh air intakes and stale air exhausts to the outdoors included as part of their system and thus no exhaust fan per say is needed. The point of this design is to further reduce the possibility of air flow from the smoking area to the nonsmoking area. This is accomplished by the use of baffles and intakes to reduce the static pressure in the smoking room so that air tends to move from the nonsmoking room to the smoking room and then to be exhausted from that room.
The problem with all of this of course is that the people who want nonsmoking will enjoy a fairly nonsmoking area. They will not be concerned with the fact that as a health hazard the servers who are working in the smoke filled room are still exposed to all the dangers of second hand smoke.
I have a new conclusion which moves away from confrontation of those smokers and nonsmokers, removes fear from the equation so that restaurant owners aren't afraid of losing business to non-controlled communities that surround them and provides an economic measure to justify a nonsmoking environment.
Next month, I will disclose what I propose. It is logical, non-costly, will not harm existing business and may eventually solve the problem of smoking vs. non-smoking public spaces forever.
Mr. Lloyd M. Gordon, President of GEC Consultants, Inc. has an MBA from the University of Chicago. He has concepted more than 390 restaurants and has been consulting for over 44 years. He helps people enter the restaurant industry, points the way to profitability, and helps keep them successful. To discuss "Smoking in Restaurants: Part Two: The Solution" he can be reached at 847-674-6310.
To Top |
