As we go to press, the Massachusetts Senate is poised to enact a statewide smoking ban. Even if Governor Romney vetoes the measure, the legislature will almost certainly override him. So the chances are, as you read this, Massachusetts will have joined New York, Connecticut, California, Maine and Delaware in banning smoking from almost all workplaces.

While the Massachusetts policy debate, as it affects smoking in workplaces, is therefore history, it is worth considering what the outcome of this debate means to the way the policy was made.
Anti-smoking advocates will hail the ban as a victory for public health. This is out of concern for workers who, in the few workplaces where smoking is still permitted, would otherwise suffer the discomfort and risks of second-hand smoke.

The workplaces at issue are restaurants and bars. Other workplaces have, for the most part, already banned smoking. The reason why restaurants and bars continue to accommodate smokers is that, for many people, smoking enhances the pleasure of eating and drinking.

While some workers may prefer to smoke at their desks or work stations, rather than being forced outside, restaurant and bar patrons are at an advantage over workers: It is easier to switch from a restaurant or bar that doesn’t permit smoking to one that does, than it is to switch from an employer who doesn’t permit smoking to one who does. Thus, in the absence of government regulations banning smoking from all workplaces, restaurants and bars continue to accommodate smokers even while other places of employment do not.

So viewed, the question of workplace smoking is not only a question of public health. It is also a question of individual choice. If lawmakers think that it is appropriate, in the name of public health, to override individual choice when it comes to patronizing bars and restaurants, then what’s to stop them from going on to “protect” workers in other occupations? Surely, sky diving instructors and their students are at risk. And what about surfers, scuba divers, high steel workers, policemen and fire fighters?

As for bar and restaurant workers, eliminating smoke from the environment won’t put them out of harm’s way. Musicians are notoriously prone to hearing loss. Shall we require ear plugs? Waitresses are at risk of sexual battery, at the hands of intoxicated patrons. Shall we ban provocative uniforms? And there are other supposed risks to workers in other occupations. We already hear of efforts to ban perfumes from workplaces.

The Beacon Hill Institute conducted an informal poll of Boston restaurant and bar managers and of wait staff over the past summer. Questions centered on what the respondents thought of the Boston smoking ban, which had been implemented earlier in the year. The responses offered some interesting insights to what people in the industry think about the issue.

We interviewed 28 waiters, waitresses and bartenders. It is not surprising that these workers seemed mostly happy to be spared the effects of second-hand smoke. Nineteen respondents – or 68% – reported that the ban had had a “positive” effect on working conditions.

What may be surprising, however, is that far fewer of them supported the ban. We asked if tips were down. And they were: an average of $20 a day during the week and $29 a day on weekends. The result is that only 15 – or 54% – favored the smoking ban.

Particularly interesting is the fact that five respondents who did not favor the ban also reported that the ban had improved working conditions. These five workers – 18% of our admittedly small sample – illustrate the importance of considering individual choice before imposing sweeping restrictions on individual behavior. As one of these workers put it, “In my opinion, it should be the bar’s choice and then you can choose a smoking bar or a nonsmoking bar.”

We also interviewed 12 restaurant and bar managers. Of these, seven reported that the ban had had an effect on business, with an average loss of $250 per day. Unsurprisingly, nine respondents – 75% – indicated that they did not favor the Boston ban. Six of the 12 managers favored a statewide ban, and four did not (the remaining two offering no opinion).

Most significantly, when we consider only those seven managers who reported an effect on business, a majority – four – did not support a statewide ban. Of these four, three reported a loss in business, owing to the ban, and one reported a gain.

It is hard to understand why managers of Boston establishments that are losing business because of the Boston ban would not support a statewide ban. The only possible explanation is that these managers oppose putting restrictions on others even when doing so would alleviate harm that they are suffering because of restrictions placed on them. In other words, these managers put principle ahead of profits. As for the one manager reporting that he gains from the Boston ban, perhaps he felt that a statewide ban would cause him to lose patrons he was attracting from communities that currently do not have a ban.

At any rate, the Massachusetts legislature placed little weight on such considerations. With all of its resources, the state might have conducted a formal survey to determine, as we tried to do, what restaurant workers and managers really think about a smoking ban. Instead, lawmakers proceeded blindly in pursuit of public-health goals that, at best, have only mixed support from the very people whose health it is their goal to protect.