The vote by the executive committee of the Ames Chamber of Commerce not to support the ban on smoking in restaurants in the city of Ames is mystifying. The arguments in favor of a ban on indoor smoking are overwhelming from any point of view. Economically, numerous studies have shown that a ban on smoking is great for business. Nearly 80 percent of all customers do not smoke. In addition, most tourists (potential customers) do not smoke. A 1997 survey in Massachusetts showed that 61 percent of randomly called respondents predicted no change in their patronage at restaurants due to smoking bans, 30 percent predicted increased patronage, and only 8 percent predicted a decrease in usage. Moreover, studies done after cities or states banned smoking in restaurants (New Jersey; Vermont; Utah; California; New York City; Flagstaff, AZ; Boulder, CO) have shown increases in revenues, or consistent revenues, after passage of ordinances. From a business point of view, not only are your employees not exposed to harmful carcinogens, but they suffer fewer respiratory illnesses and tend to take fewer sick days. From a health standpoint, the effects of second-hand smoke on customers and employees alike are well documented. For millions of people who suffer from asthma, heart disease, or are survivors of cancer, there is simply no choice but to avoid smoke-filled public spaces. From a rights point of view, there is a substantial body of law to promote the passage of ordinances that protect the health and safety of the public. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that this is about government interference into private rights. The U.S. Constitution grants no right to smoke in public places. But legal tradition in the United States has been that state and local governments were “instituted for the `common good,’ for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men” (Massachusetts State Constitution, 1780). Property used in a public manner, as are restaurants, is subject to regulation for the common good (Munn v. Illinois). Every business owner or holder of property has a legal, implied liability that it may be regulated so that use of the property may not be injurious to the rights of the community (Commonwealth v. Alger). Clean air is a community right. Despite these arguments, several council members remain unconvinced. Let the Ames City Council hear your thoughts. Call your council member or attend the city council meeting on September 12, at 7 p.m. Hundreds of people in Ames let their opinions be known about banning burning within the city of Ames. Speak up again. There is a lot of misinformation about smoking bans. Smoking bans are good for health, good for business and the right of every citizen. Together, we can clear the air for everyone. Randy Mayer

Ames