It's working.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Support for Eugene's ban on smoking in workplaces was strong when it took effect and has grown stronger since then, a survey by the Tobacco-Free Coalition of Oregon shows. The findings confirm that the Eugene City Council did the right thing when it approved the ban two years ago, and suggest to state lawmakers that Oregon should follow Eugene's lead.

Eighty-two percent of the 250 respondents in a telephone poll said they support the ban, which applies to most workplaces in the city, including bars and taverns. Sixty-nine percent said they strongly support the law. Only 17 percent oppose the ban, 11 percent strongly. The poll has a 6 percent margin of error.

The ban was controversial when it was approved - many feared that businesses, particularly bars and taverns, would have a hard time complying or that smoking customers would migrate outside the city limits. But of poll respondents who said they go to a bar or tavern at least once in the last month, 29 percent said they had become more frequent customers since the law took effect. Only 15 percent said they go to bars or taverns less often - a net gain of 14 percent.

Moreover, 84 percent of customers said the law had not caused them to go to a bar or tavern outside Eugene. Only 15 percent of those who go to bars or taverns at least once a month said the law had led them to take their business out of town. This loss of trade is offset to an unknown degree by people from outside the city who come to Eugene for a smoke-free atmosphere.

The Lane County Tobacco Prevention Program conducted a separate survey, contacting 400 bars, taverns and restaurants by mail. Twenty-two percent of the 241 who responded said they were concerned about the ban before Eugene's law took effect. By September, when the survey took place, only 16 percent said they had concerns about the law. A large majority of food and beverage retailers have never been worried about the smoking ban, and the percentage of those that have concerns has declined by more than a third.

Enforcement hasn't been a problem. Eighty-six percent of the businesses surveyed said they have had no trouble ensuring that customers comply with the smoking ban, and only 4 percent reported problems with getting employees to obey the law. The number of complaints to the city about violations has declined steeply - there were more than 50 in the first six months after the law took effect, but only three in the past five months.

Those are impressive numbers in every respect. Politicians who claim a landslide victory when they win 60 percent of the vote, and who understand that government regulation of any kind draws reliable opposition from a large segment of the population, should pause to contemplate the popularity of a law supported by 80 percent or more of customers and business owners.

State legislators, in particular, should study these poll results. The 2001 Legislature passed a law preventing Oregon cities and counties from banning smoking in bars, taverns, bowling alleys, bingo halls and a few other types of establishments. Anti-smoking laws in Eugene, Corvallis and several other cities were protected by a grandfather clause. The law was presented as a compromise, because it included provisions strengthening state restrictions on smoking in other workplaces. This compromise came at the expense of the health of thousands of Oregon workers and their customers.

The Legislature justified pre-empting local authority over smoking in workplaces on grounds that Oregon should have uniform tobacco regulations rather than a patchwork of differing city and county laws. If uniformity is indeed the goal, lawmakers could achieve it by enacting a statewide law patterned on the one in Eugene. The Oregon Restaurant Association, which led the push for the pre-emption law, should climb out of bed with the tobacco industry and throw its support behind a law that Eugene's experience shows would be popular among its members and their customers alike.

An estimated 800 Oregonians die each year as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke. A more comprehensive statewide workplace smoking ban would save some of those lives, reduce the cost of health care provided to people with illnesses related to second-hand smoke, and - as the Eugene surveys suggest - enjoy widespread support. As was the case with smoking on airplanes or in college classrooms, once the smoke clears, people will wonder why it took so long to put a ban in place.