by Charles M. Barnard
Proposals that governing bodies ban smoking in all restaurants, bars and public places, are interesting, but flawed.
Air quality, whether indoors or out, is of concern to everyone, even those who do not think about it. As a former smoker, I find myself in agreement, that it is unacceptable to expose either smokers or nonsmokers to high levels of second-hand smoke—or other contaminants.
But is banning public smoking a proper, correct and effective solution? Apparently, most of these proposals are based upon the fact that other cities have adopted such proposals. While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, it is seldom good legislative procedure. Its sole virtue is its ease of adoption.
Before setting out a solution, we should examine the problem. The problem, as I see it, is not high levels of indoor smoke per se, but poor indoor air quality in general. Indoor air quality is a combination of many factors, including but not limited to, smoke, out gassing of building materials, perfumes, body odor, exhaled gases and food aromas.
The solution to high levels of undesirable components is, historically, dilution. (This is the historic solution to garbage and other pollutants too.) The problem with dilution is that this exports the problem to the outdoor air, thus subjecting people who are even further from the cause of the problem to the results. The currently favored solution to excess pollutants is concentration and removal (i.e. filtration.) In indoor situations, the most appropriate engineering solution is a combination of filtration to remove pollutants and air exchange to remove CO2 and bring in fresh oxygen.
There is no practical reason that allowing people to smoke in public places cause excessive odor or discomfort. Engineering solutions exist to remove the smoke, replenish oxygen and retain heat or cool. They are, of course, not free. Nothing truly is, including legislation. But, they are also not horribly expensive, and they provide a solution for the majority of causes of the problem, not just smoke.
Ideally, the operators of public facilities in order to improve their service level—and draw more customers would install such systems. Legislation is probably the poorest and least efficient method of solving problems. (Note that despite laws against driving while intoxicated, the practice is still very common—and deadly.)
If a need for legislation is felt, then the proper form of such legislation is to define in measurable terms, the desired air quality level, and require operators to maintain such levels—at their expense for both testing and operations. Faced with the prospect of such mandated inspection costs and equipment, history shows that the majority of operators will opt to fight such controls by self-regulation.
Such a solution deals with the root desire (good indoor air quality) independent of the factors which reduce such quality, while preserving individual rights and the constitution.