A recent poll shows that about one-third of nonsmokers would be likely to spend more time in bars or taverns if smoking were banned there, while only a tiny percentage of smokers said they would spend less time as a result of a ban. The poll, by Critical Insights of Portland and commissioned by a coalition that wants to take smoking out of bars, has a margin of error of almost 5 percentage points. But even if it is spot-on accurate about the economic benefits of going smoke-free, it should be irrelevant to the sponsors of the poll.

The Coalition on Smoking or Health for several years has argued for the ban on the grounds that the health of bar employees was imperiled by second-hand smoke, which they were forced to inhale because of where they worked and because breathing is not optional. As an argument, it is much stronger than having the state tell patrons they weren’t allowed to smoke because it was bad for them (though it is less persuasive emotionally than the shield-the-children campaign used to raise the price of cigarettes beyond their reach). It is also the basis of LD 1346, which intends to provide “protection to employees who work in pool halls, taverns and all lounges, including hotel lounges, off-track betting lounges and restaurants with a Class A lounge license.” These establishments currently are exempted under the state’s current smoking restrictions that apply to restaurants and other public places.

The legislation was introduced by state Sen. Karl Turner, a Republican from Cumberland, who read about the dangers of secondhand smoke on, of all places, the web site of Philip Morris USA, maker of Marlboro, Benson & Hedges, Parliament and other cigarette brands. Philip Morris helpfully pointed out that the public should listen to health officials who have concluded that secondhand cigarette smoke “causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.” To dispel concern that Maine is way out front on this issue, consider that New York City, home to many famed smoky bars, will soon have famed smoke-free bars, and Ireland, which does pretty well attracting people to its pubs, has passed a similar ban to begin in 2004.

In both cases, the overriding argument was the health of the employees, and now that decade-long doubts about secondhand smoke have been snubbed out, the remaining argument is that protecting workers is bad for profits because people won’t go out for a drink if they cannot also have a smoke. That’s the reason for the poll – bars could actually increase business if they banned smoking, it suggests.

That isn’t much of a reason for a ban, but it does provide reassurance, just as the experience of restaurants, which removed their ashtrays in ’99, should. The fact that 75 percent of adult Mainers don’t smoke certainly provides incentive for bars to reach out to new patrons.

LD 1346 hasn’t attracted nearly the level of protest that the restaurant ban did when proposed. That may be because people did not stop going to restaurants or it may be because the threat of secondhand smoke has become more widely recognized. Whichever reason, the Legislature should support this bill and have Maine join other places protecting workers against this carcinogen.