Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
Lighting up is legal: Allow a few regulated smoking establishments
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Legislators and others on boths sides of the debate over Senate Bill 19, a bill to ban smoking in all private clubs, make good arguments. It is essentially a choice between freedom and public health, and who can, in good conscience, oppose either?

The anti-smoking crowd rightly says both primary and secondhand smoke are dangerous for everybody, even those who prefer smoky bars to the clean-air variety, and that it's government's place to protect people from themselves. Further, they reasonably argue, a law prohibiting smoking in all clubs would protect club employees who don't smoke and don't like breathing other people's exhaled exhaust, but need their jobs.

People who oppose a ban on smoking, too, make some good points. They say they have a right to smoke in private bars that admit only members, who, presumably, know the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke and choose to socialize with others who, however unwisely, share their attitude. They say servers, cooks and cashiers also know the risks and could get jobs elsewhere if they are worried about their health.

Because neither side is clearly wrong, we offer a suggestion that provides a more healthy environment in most private bars but allows a choice for those who like a smoke with their drinks: Make most clubs smoke-free but grant smoking licenses to just a few others, in the same way that cities are granted a limited number of liquor licenses, based on population. Owners of smoking clubs would be required to police them to keep out people under 19, the age when Utahns can legally light up.

Tobacco, like alcohol, is a dangerous, but legal, substance. Government should control its distribution and strive to keep it away from minors. The government allows like-minded people to imbibe in public places that are licensed and regulated by the state. It should allow smoking in a few such places, too.

It's true that a cigarette spews more than 4,000 dangerous chemicals into the air that a smoker's companions can't avoid. In that way, smoking is particularly foul. But if the vast majority of private clubs were smoke-free by law, people, including club employees, who worry about carcinogens could avoid them.

Government should encourage smokers to quit and young people not to start. But the state should not, across the board, prevent smokers from indulging their unhealthy habit in private clubs that wish to cater to them. Curtail, but don't ban, the practice.

PRIVATE-CLUB BAN
Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners