VALID CONCERNS OVER ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE OR RIGHTS GOING UP IN SMOKE? AN ANALYSIS OF FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, INC. V. CABELL-HUNTINGTON BOARD OF HEALTH

摘要

As of September 21, 2004, Chicago residents and policy makers had not adopted the CIARs as did their counterparts in New York, Boston, San Francisco, and many other municipalities and states across the nation. What makes Chicago capable of withstanding this nation-wide push toward placing greater restrictions on tobacco smoking than currently exist? No one is certain, but the voluntary efforts of some business owners in the Chicago area to prohibit smoking in their establishments have been credited with countering the push by appeasing non-smokers - at least, for the moment. In Chicago, a city ordinance requires restaurants to designate at least thirty percent of their seating as non-smoking; however, in response to customer demands, restaurant owners added "90 percent more smoke-free seat[ing in] the last five years" and some restaurants decided to make the decision to go smoke-free on their own. Perhaps the voluntary smoking prohibition approach taken by Chicago, as opposed to the compulsory prohibitions of many states and municipalities, has its advantages. Business owners in cities that have enacted CIARs complain of lost revenue. Citizens living in cities with CIARs complain of lost rights and liberties. As a compromise between those on opposing sides of the issue, why not encourage business owners to increase the amount of smoke-free seating in their restaurants, improve their ventilation systems or prohibit smoking in their establishment all together? The slippery slope of regulations such as CIARs became crystal clear when a California state legislator introduced a bill banning smoking in homes. Assemblyman Joe Nation (D) introduced a bill, which would prohibit smoking in multifamily dwellings such as apartments, condominiums, and town homes. Considering the number of constitutional challenges to CIARs that restrict smoking in public places such as bars, restaurants and places of employment, the constitutional challenges to regulations on smoking in one's private home would likely be even greater.