Smoking ban compromise

According to the American Lung Association's "Trends in Tobacco Use" (February 2010), "per capita [cigarette use] has steadily declined since 1963. In 2006, per capita consumption was reduced to the level last seen in 1936." Through 2007 consumption has dropped more than 18 percent in the new millennium.

It's arguable that the recent declines are due in part to smoking bans. At the same time, smoking bans are less likely to explain the 27 percent decline in the 1990s or the similar decline in the 1980s.

Clearly, if these trends continue, smoking bans would become unnecessary. While the imposition of a smoking ban now is likely to accelerate the decline in smoking, it also may impose loses on existing businesses. Current entrepreneurs made investments of their time and capital under the assumption that their customers would like to smoke, or not smoke. Why punish these people beyond what the market will do over the course of time? Without a formal ban, more and more retailers have gone smokeless. There's no reason to expect that this trend will not continue.

A compromise to this issue would be to grandfather existing establishments and ban any new firms. In 20 years I suspect that there will be no smoking in Cape Girardeau businesses. But, just as important, it will have been accomplished without punishing the existing job creators.

PETER KERR, Cape Girardeau