Banning Smoking In Restaurants Should Be A Choice Left To The Restaurant Owners

There is a heated debate going on right now. It is a debate about smoking indoors. More and more cities and even states are beginning to pass ordinances to ban smoking in certain public venues. One of the more debated of these businesses is restaurants. Ours is a county built upon the freedom to make decisions for ourselves. The decision for businesses to ban smoking should be left up to the business owners to decide.

One of the strongest debates in anything involving smoking is second-hand smoke. Most consider second hand smoke an extreme issue, when in fact, it isn't. First one must know some of the terminology involved in studies involving disease causing factors. Relative risk (RR) is the defining factor in the conclusions of the studies. How it is achieved is that the study starts with a base factor. This is how many involved in the study already have the conditions that are being studied. This equals a base RR of 1.00, which also is considered as no risk. Once the study is concluded and the results are tallied the RR goes up or down via percentages. If there is a 30% increase in risk then the RR is 1.30 if there is a 15% decrease in risk (or a protective effect) then the RR would be 0.85. Now, when dealing with these types of statistics, it is generally only considered statistically significant if the RR is 3.00 or higher. A sample scenario of RR is that scientists are trying to find out if eating potatoes causes ingrown toenails. At the beginning of the study it is determined that 30 out of the 1,000 people studied have ingrown toenails. If at the end of the study there were 60 people with ingrown toenails then the RR would be 2.00. If the results showed that only 15 people still had ingrown toenails then the RR would be 0.50 showing that eating potatoes has a protective or healing effect on ingrown toenails. Another term is Confidence Interval (CI). The CI is used to determine the precision of the RR. Generally, the closer the range of the CI, the more precise the study. The CI includes a range for the RR (i.e. 1.33 - 3.02). Any study with a CI that includes the RR of 1.00 in its range should not be considered significant because it means that the range includes no risk in the results (Hitt, 2006).

The most prominent study is the E.P.A. study in 1993. The study was a Meta-Analysis of 30 of the 33 existing studies on the effects of second-hand smoke. Though this study is considered the most prominent publication in the fight against second-hand smoke, it has been widely criticized by other professionals. In 1995 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA's study. In the review, the CRS states, "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control group members, or their surrogates, to determine ETS exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." (Readhead, 22, 1995). Not only can questionnaires be very inaccurate but in this case they weren't even filled out by the people being studied. Also, the CRS noted that, of the 30 studies used in the EPA report, only 5 showed a significant RR, one showed a negative RR (protective effect), and the rest of the studies were significantly insignificant(Readhead, 1995). Another major critic of this study was District Court Judge William Osteen. Osteen accused the EPA of "cherry-picking" their data. Judge Osteen also states:

EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines. See ETS Risk Assessment at 4-29 ("These data should also be examined in the interest of weighing all the available evidence, as recommended by EPA's carcinogen risk assessment guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1986a) (emphasis added)). Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act. The Act states EPA's program shall "gather data and information on all aspects of indoor air quality. (71, 1998)

Osteen also states in conclusion:

After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies. (87-88, 1998)

Now one must ask, what is the great risk that the EPA claims to support? A mere RR of 1.19 (EPA, 1992). With that low of a risk, second-hand smoke really should not be considered as a factor for smoking in restaurants or public places in general.

With so many anti-smoking ordinances being passed, many of the owners of these restaurants are concerned about how these bans will affect their business. If all restaurants are forced to ban smoking then business probably will not be affected too much due to the "leveled playing field" (Apfel, 1998), however a lot of the ordinances being passed have exceptions for certain restaurants that do allow smoking. In some places the exceptions are based on how many tables the restaurant has, in some places it is whether they serve food or not, and in some it could be mandated that there has to be a closed off well ventilated room for smokers. This could cause some restaurants that aren't willing to adhere to these exceptions to lose business because a competitor down the street meets the exceptions and the people can go there and smoke. Another major concern is on behalf of the owners and managers of these establishments. They are being forced to ask patrons to go outside to smoke. In an industry that is all about customer service, asking this of their customers should be considered a major concern. The Board of Directors of the National Restaurant Association opposes all smoking bans, and "supports giving operators the chance to set smoking policies according to customer preferences and local customs," (Ipfal, 1998, par. 6). Another factor that is bothering many restaurateurs in Nevada is where the exception to the ban is that if they do not serve