The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

POINT: Smoking ban stays in restaurants

File photo

The hands of local restaurant owners continue to be tied by the city of Eau Claire as the City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to uphold its current smoking ban in restaurants.

The ban, which has been in place for over a year and affects those businesses who earn less than 50 percent of their gross receipts from alcohol sales, is a sign of increasing government intrusion.

The smoking ordinance limits restaurant owners as to how they can run their businesses and what types of customers they can draw.

Story continues below advertisement

Read the counterpoint to this column.

The ordinance does have a clause in it that exempts, for one year, any business that shows it has lost at least 15 percent of its profits from the ban.

Racy D’Lene’s Very Coffee Lounge, 404 Riverside Ave., is the only business to qualify for the exemption. The coffee shop lost a reported 22 percent of its profits in the first six months of the ordinance.

But the exemption lasts only one year before the business can re-apply and the council voted 6-5 Tuesday against making exemptions permanent.

The fact that Racy’s and other businesses have lost profits and been affected negatively from the ordinance is unfair and anti-business.

The side in support of the ban says the city needs to put health and safety concerns over the hardships of any business.

But it’s not like the businesses affected by the ban are forcing people to eat in their restaurants where the presence of second hand smoke may appear at times.

It seems as though people can’t make decisions for themselves any more and need the government to do it for them.

Just look at those in the nation who want to make it illegal to not wear a seat belt while driving. Yes, it would save lives but it’s still a personal choice that the government shouldn’t have a say in.

Supporters of the smoking ordinance bank their beliefs on the right for clean air while visiting a restaurant. They say it’s their right to breathe in air free of second-hand smoke, which eventually can lead to cancer.

If second hand smoke in a restaurant becomes so disgusting or bothersome to a customer, then their rights are to complain to the owners about it and take their business elsewhere if they choose to. Citizens do not have any ownership in these businesses as they do in public buildings.

People do not have to go into a restaurant if they do not like the smokey atmosphere of the place, just like someone does not have to stay in a live-music bar if the music is too loud for them.

If the music is too loud, in this example, the person can move further away from the speakers or leave. The same goes for the supporters of the ban who can sit in non-smoking areas or leave.

Have any of these people filled out customer feedback cards that some restaurants offer? Restaurants want to know what customers think of their business and how they could improve.

If a good number of a restaurant’s customers desire a smoke-free atmosphere, then there’s a good chance its owners would change the place’s format to that.

Government needs to put regulations on private businesses obviously in some cases, such as food safety checks to prevent customers from getting food poisoning.

But people can’t avoid that potential harm as they can with avoiding restaurants with smoking.

Supporters of the smoking ban took matters into their own hands and expressed their dining dismay.

This is good, but they went and told it to the wrong people.

Private businesses aren’t run by the government, owners run them. Let them make the decisions.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Spectator intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. The Spectator does not allow anonymous comments and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Spectator Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
POINT: Smoking ban stays in restaurants