Editorial
Council should ban restaurant smoking

It's back. City Councilman John Henry Felix is revisiting a controversial ban on smoking in restaurants, an issue that brought plenty of controversy in previous incarnations.

The council passed a somewhat watered-down ban in 1995, but Mayor Jeremy Harris vetoed it. Another bill died in committee.

Now Felix says that he's nearing the end of his term, and passing a ban is the right thing to do. He's right about that, and also in believing that popular thinking on the issue may have evolved considerably since it last was heard.

Why is the issue controversial? From a workplace health perspective, there's no argument that the health of people working in restaurants is endangered by smokers. The "let them work someplace else" argument is far too cavalier for today's hard-pressed, hard-working restaurant workers.

But Council Chairman Jon Yoshimura, echoing Harris' veto rationale, says the city should stay out of what should be a business decision for restaurants. It's a respectable point of view that argues that government has no right to tell any business what to do about the health habits of the customers and employees who spend time within its four walls.

If a firm chooses to let customers and employees smoke, it could be argued that's no one's business outside the firm itself. Same goes for the company that chooses to ban smoking for employees, customers or both.

Happily, we've moved beyond such thinking. Government regulations in place today prohibit smoking in a variety of public and semi-public places, from hospitals and offices to supermarkets and elevators.

The reasoning behind such regulations is simple: Smoking produces secondhand smoke, which is dangerous to the health and well-being of those exposed to it. It's not a matter of personal choice; it is a matter of subjecting others to the health impact of a bad habit.

Observers at City Hall are pessimistic about Felix's bill's chances. That's too bad. His bill is just a beginning, exempting bars, nightclubs and separate rooms in restaurants.

This bill should become law, after which the exemptions should gradually be eliminated. Protections against exposure to secondhand smoke are just as important to restaurant workers as they are to bank tellers or supermarket clerks.

Restaurants say a ban would drive away customers, particularly foreign tourists who enjoy smoking. Drive them away to where? If the ban is applied equally, there is no competitive disadvantage to any particular restaurant.

Critics say the smoking ban is another example of government "big brotherism." That's a fair argument, if one looks at the ban solely as an attempt to regulate the personal habits of Honolulu's citizens.

But smoking in a public place is not a personal habit. It is a public habit, one with recognized health dangers.