Cover Story

To Smoke Or Not To Smoke?

While the 'no-smoking' philosophy works for some hotels, it might not be feasible for others. S Nithya Kamakshi clears the air

While Hamlet's predicament was to do with a life or death situation, the confusion that hotels face - whether to let guests smoke or not - is only a tad less severe. Studies have shown that bans on smoking can create both winners and losers.

While there is no credible evidence that going smoke-free is bad for business, there is a lot of data that proves that going smoke-free is a positive business decision. Dialogues with hotel employees show that those who don't have to wade through smoke to service guests feel healthier and can therefore work more productively. Some also argue that such bans improve economic prospects of the hospitality businesses.

Of course, there will be people on both sides of the fence. But the fact of the matter is that the non-smoking policy combines both advantages and disadvantages. Just because a concept works for some restaurants does not imply that it will work for others as well.

The hospitality industry is customer-driven, more than most other businesses, and customer demands determine the hours of operation, the food and drinks served, and their stance vis-à-vis smoking. Thus, business owners must constantly monitor customer preferences or risk failing altogether. A staff member of a leading chain of pizza outlets says, "Our outlets offer both smoking and non-smoking areas to give our customers the choice. Recent changes in demands have lead to our non-smoking areas being generally much larger than areas where smoking is permitted. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor customer feedback with interest."

The Legalities

If one has to evaluate the matter more intrinsically, the legalities of smoking in public places must be considered. For instance, clause 2 (l) of 'The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Bill 2001' defines a 'public place' as any place to which the public has access and includes auditoriums, hospitals, health institutions, amusement centres, restaurants, public offices, court buildings, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances and the like, which are visited by general public but does not include any open space. Clause 3 of the Bill bans smoking in public places.

Other relevant clauses of the Bill relating to Clause 3 deal with the level of punishment, power to inspect and arrest, etc. The bill envisages a complete ban on smoking in restaurants without consideration of type, size or allowing it in controlled conditions. Although bars and hotels are not mentioned in the list, they will be included under 'public places' by definition, except perhaps hotel guestrooms. The intention behind banning smoking in public places is obviously to protect non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking.

Global Perspective

Today, quite a few hotels and restaurants in developed countries are opting for the non-smoking tag. However, a large number of restaurants allow smoking in segregated areas and provide for smoke-free guestrooms and floors. The concept is based on giving a choice to the customer, while also protecting the rights and wishes of smokers. These establishments, like pure vegetarian restaurants, create a USP for themselves to attract a certain type of clientele. Therefore, we see hotels divided into three segments; completely for smokers, totally non-smoking, and the rest with segregated places.

Advocates of 'smoking allowed' hotels and restaurants argue that people visit these places to relax and to indulge in sensory pleasures, including smoking. And even though they might appreciate the ban on smoking in a bus or a government office, they shun the practice of following the same in a restaurant. It is argued that if smokers cannot smoke in a certain environment, they are bound to spend less time and money in that particular restaurant/bar - both, per visit and the frequency of visits. This is bound to adversely affect the business of restaurants, a vast majority of them being in the small, cottage and tiny sectors.

Research shows that sales in restaurants in certain countries that have banned smoking have gone down, leading to retrenchment of staff. Keeping this in mind, the International Hotel & Restaurant Association (IH&RA) based in Paris along with national associations like FHRAI has been running a programme called Courtesy of Choice in about 150 countries. This involves providing smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants and bars based on a scientific study of ventilation and airflow. Hotels and restaurants in India as well, under the sponsorship of FHRAI, have adopted this programme, which is currently in existence in 227 F&B outlets in 15 Indian cities and reportedly growing every year.

"Take foreign tourists visiting India, for instance. Assuredly, of the 2.7 million foreign tourists that we receive per year, a large number of them are used to smoking in restaurants and bars in their own country and other countries visited by them. A ban on smoking will certainly curb their enjoyment factor and their overall spending in hotels, restaurants and bars. This will not only lead to lesser business for hotels/restaurants but will also cause a decline in tax revenues for the centre and the states," expressed a leading hotelier.

Tourism is a very competitive industry and any restrictions on the enjoyment and lifestyle of tourists is likely to affect the tourist inflow and foreign exchange earnings for India. FHRAI is, therefore, asking for an exemption for restaurants, with the provision that smoking may be allowed in segregated places. While this sounds like an ideal solution, there are a few drawbacks to this as well. One, it might create a bias in favour of star category hotels and large restaurants. Two, creating segregated places for smokers will require an architectural study of the place and investment in creating the right ventilation. Three, some places may not have enough space to create such facilities. Therefore, FHRAI recommended that hotels and restaurants may be left out of the present anti-smoking Bill with specific exemption.

Second Hand Smoke

Over 65 percent of the hospitality community support smoke-free zones in all indoor public places. More so because the only workers in our state who aren't protected from second hand smoke are those in restaurants, bars and bowling alleys.

Studies reveal that waitresses are three times more likely to die from lung cancer than women in other occupations. Many hospitality workers inhale the equivalent of two packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day. Kuljit Rekhi of Chennai-based Cappuccino restaurant says, "We have always supported a no-smoking stance. Indeed, more and more food courts are now converting to no-smoking zones. Throughout the 1990s till today, the policy in stand-alone units has been a no-smoking one. There are smoking and non-smoking areas within the restaurants, with good signage that segregate both sections to cater to all customers."

Second hand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals and at least 40 known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). Not surprisingly then, research states that second hand smoke is also a major cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, and ear infections in children. According to P Rajagopal, GM of Apoorva Sangeetha - a Chennai-based restaurant, "We are keen to minimise customer and staff exposure to tobacco smoke and have worked hard to improve the ventilation in all our restaurants. Currently, our restaurants are strictly for non-smokers but we are open to new concepts and changes as long as our customers remain comfortable."

According to a frequent restaurant visitor, there are smoking and non-smoking areas in all major restaurants. "There is good ventilation and the restaurants comply with the legislation. If it is big enough then it can have both smoking and non-smoking zones, but if it is small then it is up to the MD to take a decision." The simple question; whether to allow smokers or not does not have one simple answer. Various forces come into play and hotels must calculate which stance will benefit and suit them given their customer profile. After all, the customer is still the king.