If allowing smoking is bad for business, as prohibitionists declare, why do so many business owners think otherwise? A court concurs that allowing smoking is good for business.
In Canada a Manitoba bar owner filed suit when that province banned smoking in "public places." He based his suit on a constitutional issue, a ploy that has a dismal record of failure. The constitutional issue focused on the glaring unfairness in exempting Indian tribal businesses from the smoking ban that all other businesses must follow. As per usual the court tossed his suit because public health trumps all issues, including, in this case, racial discrimination. In ruling against the plaintiff, however, the court performs a service to the truth by knocking down anti-tobacco’s contention that removing the smoke — and smokers — leads to higher profits. The court wrote:
"If [the bar owner] were to carry on business on a reserve — the possibility of which may arguably be described as remote, but not impossible under the Indian Act — he would enjoy the benefit of the exemption".
That exemption from the smoking ban is a benefit is something intelligent people have known all along. That a court agrees is useful. That the court, while agreeing with the plaintiff, still upholds the smoking ban is typical of a culture that is deeply sick. Governments have purposely enacted a law that predictably diminishes the profits of the businesses affected. That’s a fact and the Manitoba court agrees.