Necessary Roughness

My gracious host took me and several others to lunch at the local barbeque. We ordered our food and sat down. While we were waiting, a man and his dog walked up to the counter and ordered. Our group (my back was turned) was discussing the event, wondering if it was against health codes. The man wasn’t blind, and the canine wasn’t a seeing-eye dog.

Fast-forward a little, and the conversation got into restaurant smoking regulations. I don’t smoke myself, but I respect the restaurant owner’s natural right to determine whether he wants to run a smoke-free establishment. I said the state didn’t need to force restaurants to be completely smoke-free.

Some discussion followed. This is California after all.

I said: You all saw that dog walk into this restaurant. A health inspector could walk in here and order a complete shutdown of the restaurant, and you would be forced to leave without eating. Without the inspector, you determined that the risk to your health was minimal, and you stayed. You exercised your freedom to eat where you wanted to. Without anti-smoking laws, you would assess whether or not the risk to your health was high enough to eat somewhere else, and you would vote with your feet and your wallet.

The restaurant was the owner’s to do with as he pleased. If he didn’t want us there, he could lock the door and close the restaurant. He wanted us there, so he had incentive to make the place so that we would want to be there and spend money.

Sure, most restaurants had smoking and non-smoking sections before there were anti-smoking laws, and yes, the non-smokers smelled the smoke in many of those restaurants. That was also before many of the studies of secondhand smoke came out. Today many more people aware of the risks of secondhand smoke and its effect on food taste would avoid those restaurants. Other restaurants could advertise they were smoke-free and draw business away from smoking establishments.

All without the burden of hiring additional inspectors, license clerks, and police.