Restaurant smoking — a better idea

Various cities have wrestled with the idea of a smoking ban in restaurants — should they or shouldn’t they? After all, the idea of a no-smoking section is silly, unless it’s physically separate and separately vented. (The waitress at an all-smoking rib place in Connecticut once told me, “If you sit here this’ll be a no-smoking table.” Seriously.)

But it seems to be there’s an obvious solution that would make both smokers and non-smokers happy, or at least less unhappy.

Instead of passing a law banning smoking, why not pass one that requires restaurants and bars to either be smoking or non-smoking — no sections. They would have to prominently display which they were on their doors. Then it’s up to the restaurant owners to decide which way they want to go.

This deals with the actual problem, that the idea of a non-smoking section is usually silly, especially for the people sitting near the border. So it’s gentle regulation — owners can do what they like, but they can’t pretend to have it both ways.

You could add to the law as well, maybe by setting strict guidelines for a smoking section in a non-smoking restaurant (e.g., separate ventilation system, closed off from non-smoking section, etc.). You could also require businesses that choose to allow smoking to give their staff X months warning, or pay them a stipend of some sort while they looked for work elsewhere.

The end result would be much more in keeping with a “hand’s off” government, but would also acknowedge the fallacy of having smoking and non-smoking sections.