The smoking issue: a fierce dilemma

Nation's Restaurant News, May 8, 1989 by Charles Bernstein

The smoking issue: A fierce dilemma

Smoke is still blowing in non-smoker's faces at restaurants, as Nation's Restaurant News Midwest editor Carolyn Walkup emphasized in a recent column. She asserted that operators and employees alike "show an appalling lack of sensitivity to the rights of non-smokers."

Walkup observed that "since few operators have voluntarily set aside no-smoking sections, local government are increasingly passing no-smoking ordinances to protect non-smokers from the proven dangers of inhaling second-hand smoke." She added that "some operators are having trouble accepting the laws."

No-smoking sections, which sometimes are smaller than smoking section, too often "are back in some dark corner next to the kitchen," Walkup asserted. And with smoke blowing from one (open) section to another, she noted, "some operators are doing a much better job of separating smoking and non-smoking sections with dividers or walls."

Walkup's points are well taken and in effect dramatize a serious dilemma facing restaurateurs today. For the most part, they want to be good citizens so that their customers will return. This means providing both no-smoking and smoking sections and thus -- at least in theory -- offering freedom of choice, whether mandated by law or not.

Non-smokers, now a solid majority in America, sometimes insist that all smoking be banned for their own welfare. Airlines have already prohibited smoking on flights of less than two hours and on certain other trips. This issue is so volatile that it has led to flareups and even fights started by would-be smokers on no-smoking flights.

Anyone who is en route to the rest room and almost chokes on the dense smoke emanating from a smoking section in the back of an airplane will not appreciate the fumes. An updated air-conditioning system that filters out the smoke would be an obvious solution.

During a smoking ban in Beverly Hills last year, restaurateurs reported that sales were off 20 percent to 30 percent as cigarette and cigar smokers apparently boycotted the restaurants en masse and took their business elsewhere. That ban finally was rescinded for freestanding restaurants. Ironically, it is still in effect at hotel restaurants.

Portland, Ore., and other cities are also threatening to enact smoking bans. This government-mandated legislation again poses a threat to the entire industry, but it also presents a challenge for restaurateurs to take action first.

Still, no matter how one looks at the problem, it is a complex issue that defies easy solutions for restaurateurs or customers.

"Free-choice" proponents, who would abolish no-smoking sections, emphasize that modern ventilation systems filter the smoke from restaurants, thereby making such sections unnecessary. This point has some validity since the best heating and air-conditioning units balance the air from the kitchen and the dining room, theoretically clearing out smoke from both areas.

But not all systems are so modern, and many non-smokers prefer a guarantee that they can at least sit in a non-smoking section without any smoke blowing on them. Yet inevitably non-smokers are seated at the border of a smoking section where they are vulnerable to "floating" smoke.

Setting aside a no-smoking area is a noble enterprise, but it severely limits a restaurant's flexibility. Most operations achieve the bulk of their sales in peak meal periods typically totaling no more than six hours daily. But their options are cut when they designate specific no-smoking areas.

It is hazardous to project which proportion of customers will want no-smoking, smoking, or any type of seating (to avoid a long wait or just on general principles). The net result can be disgruntled patrons and unhappy restaurateurs.

One possible solution would be to deploy movable smoking and no-smoking signs, with the areas varying according to the time of day or night and the traffic. The problem is that every so often a health inspector comes in and spots this technique as a violation.

In short, there is no easy way to please health-conscious non-smokers and still protect smokers rights. We believe that the rights of both groups are best guarded by providing smoking and no-smoking sections--even with their imperfections.