http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2743092 Smoking ban eyed for Houston Councilwoman researches a plan to target eateries and workplaces By JUSTIN GEST Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle SMOKING RESTRICTIONS Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the only physician on the City Council, is studying smoking ordinances in other cities with an eye toward proposing what would be Houston's first outright ban on smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants. "The ban would be on smoking in public places — anyplace that conducts business and where people would gather, not in residences," she said. "Smoking and secondhand smoke are dangerous for all Houstonians, and that's why we are looking to move forward." Mayor Bill White, who controls the council's agenda, said he might support adjusting the city's existing smoking restrictions, but would not commit to a full ban. "I support the efforts taken so far," White said. "Whatever we do is going to have to be incremental and over time." Chance to pass But Councilman Gordon Quan believes that, if proposed, such an ordinance has a strong chance of passage. "I don't know how the sides are going to line up, but I was at a Quality of Life Committee meeting a while ago, and there was a lot of support," he said Tuesday. "I know it has been on the back burner for a while," Quan added. "But I think the fact that other major cities are doing it, and that it hasn't hurt their businesses and convention trade, is a good thing. Concerns with secondhand smoke have also been raised by the medical community." Houston is the only major metropolitan area in Texas that has not banned smoking in either eateries or workplaces, although many Houston businesses voluntarily have limited smoking. The city does ban smoking in elevators, restrooms and certain retail establishments; requires workplaces to accommodate nonsmoking employees; and sets special ventilation standards for places that allow smoking. El Paso barred cigarettes inside all workplaces, restaurants, and bars in 2002; Dallas followed with a restaurant ban in 2003; San Antonio and Austin banned workplace smoking earlier this year. Other major metros Of the three American cities larger than Houston, smoking has been banned in workplaces, restaurants and bars in New York and Los Angeles, and Chicago is considering a ban. The restaurant industry condemns such broad bans as unnecessary. Juli Salvagio, executive director of the Greater Houston Restaurant Association, said that decisions about smoking in restaurants should be left to business owners reacting to customers' demand. "Each time another city passes an anti-smoking ordinance, everyone says, 'Where's Houston?' " Salvagio said. "But I don't think there's a need." "Restaurants and hotels have been going nonsmoking as it is," she said. "People more and more are asking for nonsmoking, and smoking sections are becoming smaller and smaller as a result. It's going to naturally happen on its own." Ban proponents say that their objective is not to regulate personal choice, but to protect the health and comfort of non-smokers. "Sure, many restaurants and workplaces have already decided to go smoke-free," said Bronson Frick, the associate director of the San Francisco-based American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. "The ordinances are intended to reel in the rest of the bunch. Most people drive at a reasonable speed, but some people are excessive, and that's why we have a speed limit — to restrict the potential hazard. But restaurants want to keep an open market, and they won't completely get rid of their smoking section voluntarily because they think they'll lose those customers." Restaurant owners do express that fear, and particularly worry about partial bans that limit smoking in restaurants but not bars. They fear exempted businesses would have a competitive advantage. Sekula-Gibbs said her proposal would group bars with restaurants, so restaurants wouldn't lose business to bars subject to looser smoking restrictions. Still seeking opinions She said she is consulting the various interests before drafting a specific proposal, and does not have a timetable. "We are gathering data from other cities on comparable language and gathering input from stakeholders, people with an interest in individual health and businesses.". She anticipates opposition from restaurants and smokers. "Certain people look at smoking as an individual right," she said. "They have to understand that they would still be allowed to smoke, just not in public areas."
Booooo! I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I want to open a bar called Smokers, and I put a big sign up that says 'we smoke in here!,' then I damn well ought to be able to. These psuedo-science nazis aren't concerned with individual rights. Don't like smoke? Don't want to be 'exposed' to smoke, then stay out of my smoking bar. Easy solution and no government crackdown necessary.
Why does it have to be all or none? What happened to choice? It should be up to the business owner. If a business owner wants their business to be non-smoking that is fine. If they want to allow smoking that should be ok too. It seems like some smoke-free bars would already exist in Houston due to demand. Are there any here? Give people a choice.
The theoretical justification for "all-or-none", would be that in purely economic terms they would all eventually allow it in order to compete with each other -- so it would break down and have no effect. Anyway, don't smoke, and I hate smoking but I was opposed to the ban in NY when they imposed it because I thought it was too intrusive and restrictive. But now that it's been put in, it's totally awesome, it makes the experience of hanging out in a bar or restaurant so much better to not have to deal with a nasty, eye watering smoky mass of toxicity hanging over the place and infesting your skin and clothes. I don't think I could ever go back to the way it was.
Great. You like smoke free bars. I like smoke free restaurants. There will be many reply stating that. I like to smoke when I drink. But that is not the issue. The question is what can't there be both types of places?
While I personally love the smoke free clubs, I feel like a hypocrite supporting this b/c I believe in free markets. If there is demand for this product (and i really do think there is), then entrepreneurs will build it. But I won't protest too loudly.
Public health would be the justification. I mean, I could tell you that I like bars where you can pee on the floor without having to walk all the way over to the bathroom, so why can't we have both? etc.
Health concerns. Primarily for the workers. You cannot maintain an unhealthy work environment even if you post warnings or give the staff the choice of not working there. Smoke free is the current rage. It will come. And, as i said, you'd be surprised how smooth the transistion will be. EDIT -- quick draw Sam beat me to the post!
Don't work there. (like you didn't know I would say that). Many professions are dangerous. I don't care about the transition. Something just seems wrong if I go down to the local biker bar / beer garden to play horseshoes and nobody can smoke. It sucks.
Columbus (Ohio) city council just passed it a month ago here. it goes on the ballot in November. it got done in a big hurry (thru city council). Lot's of businesses are upset, but looks like it's going to happen unless teh voters turn it down. Right now it seems like a lot of politicians are scared to vote against it (for smoking) for possible future litigation.
It's an office, not a health club It's a sporting event, not a health club It's an airplane not a health club That's not a particularly strong analogy either
I have to agree. It was so refreshing to go out for a long night on the town, and come home without reeking of stanky smoke from my hair, jacket, shirt, etc. It really is an amazing feeling.
I wish Austin's rules were stronger. We would spend a hell of a lot more time in bars and clubs, listening to music. I understand how smokers feel about it. I've been there. Hopefully, most places will have a place to light up, even if it's hanging around the door. And if places want to be for "smokers only"... seems like what that's we have now.
These ordinances are complete and utter bullsh*t. Second hand smoking is, at best, a mild annoyance. Refinery waste, human waste, and electrical towers are far, faaaaaar more dangerous to us than this second hand smoke. Smoke is smelly! It gets on my clothes! Waaaa! Grow up. Quit pushing needless laws in my face.
I'll try to stick to the topic at hand this time. But seriously, is this necessary? Absolutely NOT!!! I have been to restaurants and to bars that have had no smoking in Houston. I respect that. But to make EVERY FREAKING PLACE IN TOWN non-smoking because, again, it is the bandwagon everyone seems to cave on, is absurd. I'm seriously thinking of starting my own lobby for this crap. The ironic thing is I'm trying to quit. That said, I would never in a million years condemn it the way these idiots have. Seriously, these anti-smoking people are as bad as PETA with their fish-hook dog ads. It is so r****ded, it is not even funny.
Yea and No. I understand the concerns. There is a time and a place for everything. I don't want smoking in movie theaters, planes, libraries, usually even restaurants. But I usually don't mind it at ice-houses, bars, etc. But it should be up to the business owner and their patrons to decide.
Funny thing is....Fatty's reply is the one that makes most sense in the context of the ban that's being proposed. If you don't think that prolonged exposure to smoke is a big health concern, then there's really no reason for the ban. If you do accept that it has health concerns, then you should consider the ban, or, in the very least, have ventilation or other requirements that mitigate the risk. Proponents of the ban have argued that ventilation is never good enough. Whether i personally prefer smoke free is irrelevant. That's where the business model takes over. Business will try to cater to their customers wants. I don't much like hiphop music, and wouldn't want to work or visit a place that blasted it all day. THat's my choice. And it's the choice of the staff. I should not, however, have the 'choice' of working in an unsafe mill because they chose not to instal safeties on their machinery. Even if I know the 'risk' this is where regulation kicks in. Years ago this wasn't an issue. Now it's the rage. Too much? Maybe. But times change. (and litigation lawyers lurk in the bushes drafting their class action suits ).
