By Jason Schwalm
The Louisville Metro Council overwhelmingly passed a measure to ban smoking in Louisville establishments on August 11. The acrimony that followed the vote was not surprising: it mirrored the past few months of debate surrounding this issue.
Some opponents claim that a ban will hurt business for restaurant owners. But nearly every major city in California has a total smoking ban for both bars and restaurants, and economists have yet to note a migration of commercial activity to Utah.
Still others claim that banning smoking in public places is a derogation of their personal freedoms. On the contrary, many perfectly legal actions have limitations placed on their execution. No campaigns exist to viciously defend my right to stand on a table at Applebee’s and sing, nor do bare-footed, would be diners consider a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” policy unconstitutional.
Public singing and dress code infractions are merely nuisances. Although such behaviors do not cause any quantifiable damage to other restaurant patrons, still the rights to these actions are amended. So, too, does the local government retain the authority to legitimately ban smoking.
Irrespective of health concerns, current restaurant pricing provides inefficient economic incentives: a diner who smokes receives more for the price of a meal than a non-smoker.
The smoker is able to both eat her meal and enjoy the surrounding atmosphere, while a non-smoker purchases the same meal, but her enjoyment may be curtailed by the other patron’s behavior. Quite simply, a smoking diner is getting more than she paid for: not just her food, but the right to ruin everyone else’s meal as well.
There are more elegant remedies for this disparity than a ban. One solution is to alter the price of a meal in environments that allow smoking through the sale of a fixed number of smoking permits. Owners of restaurants who believe that their clientele would prefer to retain the right to smoke could purchase such certification from the Louisville Metro Government.
The purchase of these permits would then be included in the total cost of operating a restaurant, and proprietors would simply raise prices by an amount sufficient to compensate for the increase. Strategic pricing of the permits, ensuring that they register only a 50 to 75 cent increase on each item sold, would make such a policy practical, and ultimately more efficient than a total ban.
A ban would encourage some restaurateurs to cheat and allow smoking even though it was illegal. However, if an owner of an officially delineated smoking restaurant discovers that his permit-less next-door neighbor allows smoking, such an owner would be strongly encouraged to report the delinquency.
A smoking patron now pays a price that more accurately reflects the total bill of goods purchased at a restaurant: both the food and the right to smoke during the meal.
Restaurant owners have a creative option to either retain their smoking clientele (quelling worries about customer loss from such a policy), or operate with lower costs relative to the increase seen by their competitors.
The Metro Government increases revenue without raising taxes, and its formerly unenforceable ordinance includes incentives for self-regulation.
Jason Schwalm is a senior majoring in English, and is the Opinion Editor for The Louisville Cardinal. E-mail him at: jschwalm@louisvillecardinal.com
