We Are Not Criminals

Limited L.A. outdoor ban passes

A long struggle over outdoor smoking that presaged an even larger battle ended after an 18-month tug-of-war between competing interests in Los Angeles with the passage of an ordinance extending smoking bans to outdoor dining areas of restaurants.

The decidedly-liberal City Council passed the measure (08-1544), which was originally requested by Council member Greig Smith to “prohibit smoking in outdoor dining areas” back in June of 2008. After complaints from cigar smokers, who engaged the anti-smoking lobby at committee hearings and lobbied furiously with funding assistance from Cigar Rights of America, the final version of the ordinance was written in a close-cropped manner:

Specifically exempted from the ordinance were bars; in fact, the final language reads “an outdoor dining area shall not include an area that is continuous to . . . A bar, or a nightclub that requires that its patrons be eighteen or older,” and

An exemption was also added for outdoor dining areas of “A restaurant, business or non-commercial building that is completely closed to the public for a private event.”

These are important in that, as regards restaurants, some smoking-friendly establishments convert to bar status – with only age-18 or older admitted – during late-night hours, and smoking could be allowed at those times, and the exemption for private events held in outdoor dining areas of restaurants or other facilities preserves the ability to hold cigar dinners or other charitable events and have smoking permitted.

While the new ordinance is another unwelcome encroachment on the freedom to smoke outdoors – where there is no health risk from so-called “secondhand smoke” – the exemptions that were won demonstrated again how civic involvement and participation makes a difference. Council member Tom LaBonge, who personally refereed the arguments between the anti-smoking and cigar-smoking groups, said at the initial committee meeting on the Smith motion that the anti-smoking groups “would have success on this,” but recognized that the public’s tolerance for limits on smoking was reaching its limits.

Further, a long discussion about signage requirements under the new ordinance was resolved to no one’s complete satisfaction. There will be a one-year grace period, during which a sign must be “clearly visible and readable to a majority” of restaurant customers that a smoking ban in that area will take effect in January 2011 and then a permanent sign is required which must only be “clearly visible and readable to most diners in the outdoor dining area.” That’s quite a bit less onerous than other smoking-ban signage required in the Los Angeles Municipal Code and signals a very modest signage requirement that businesses must undertake.

In addition, the new ordinance specifies no enforcement mechanism or primary agency, which means that complaints will almost certainly be made to the Los Angeles Police Department, which will just as certainly place a low priority on such calls.

The fight by cigar smokers against the easy passage of this ordinance was successful in that the exemptions carved out of what could have been – and would have been – a blanket ban on outdoor dining areas of all types stand for the proposition that – at least outdoors – smoking is to be allowed in venues for which minors are not admitted. That’s important. (The City of Los Angeles does not control indoor smoking laws because of preemptive California-wide statutes.)

Just as crucial is that the enormous effort expended by cigar smokers against this proposal has left a much more dangerous motion by City Council member Bernard Parks essentially stillborn. His proposal, submitted on August 8, 2008 (08-2123), was to create ordinances which banned smoking in all places in which people might or could congregate, which would essentially ban smoking everywhere in the City except possibly in private homes. That proposal, likely submitted by Parks as an election-year idea in 2008 in his losing campaign to win an open seat as a Los Angeles County Supervisor, was cheered by anti-smoking advocates, but has gone nowhere in the 18 months since he submitted it. It could still be considered, but is most likely to simply expire on August 11 of this year. That’s good.

Indianapolis and L.A. stop smoking ban bills!

There seems to be little let-up in the continuing drum-beat of the anti-tobacco lobby, trying to impose more and more restrictions on smoking in city after city across the United States. But in Indianapolis and Los Angeles, extensions of existing smoking bans were slowed down this week.

In Indianapolis, the City Council finally voted on Monday evening on a ferociously-lobbied ordinance that would have extended the city’s existing smoking ban to bars, bowling alleys and nightclubs. But the new ordinance lost by a 13-12 vote, short of the 15 votes needed for passage.

The Council then voted 14-13 to table the proposal, allowing it to return for a vote later in the session. Advocates of the new ban expect it to come up for a vote again early next year.

Indianapolis’s existing smoking ban is pretty severe, including a ban on smoking in all restaurants into which minors are admitted. But the votes for a further ban were not there.

Naturally, the anti-smoking groups pledged to continue their battle, but so did the ban opponents. “If anything is a threat to Indianapolis business, you can expect Indianapolis business owners to fight it,” said Brad Klopfenstein, leader of a coalition called Save Indianapolis Bars, in the Indianapolis Business Journal. “We don’t expect it to go away.”

Despite the defeat, Council member and measure co-sponsor Ben Hunter (R) said he expects the ban extension to eventually pass.

In Los Angeles, a long battle over the extension of a smoking ban to outdoor areas of restaurants continues.

The latest chapter was a meeting of the Los Angeles City Council’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee on Tuesday morning, where a proposed ordinance was ready for passage and to be sent to the City Council for final approval.

But it got nowhere.

A lengthy process of discussions among City Council members and proponents and opponents of the proposed ban on extending the City’s ban to “outdoor dining areas” led to an agreement last year with Committee chair Tom LaBonge that both sides would not object to an ordinance which imposed a smoking ban in outdoor dining areas of restaurants, but not on outdoor serving areas of bars or nightclubs, which also meant that restaurants which switch to adults-only admissions in the evening hours (essentially becoming a bar) could also allow outdoor smoking on their patios.

But the ordinance as drafted by the Los Angeles City Attorney did not reflect that agreement, especially in its requirements for signage which simply said “no smoking” and did not provide for smoking given a change in admissions status for adults only.

Against this background, at the Tuesday morning hearing, anti-smoking advocates tried to push aside the deal worked out in 2008 and asked for a complete smoking ban in outdoor areas of bars and nightclubs, as well as at restaurants at all times. Representatives of the Cigar Rights of America group responded that the committee members had not even inspected the kind of late-night spots that would be impacted, especially for cigar smokers, although LaBonge did visit a bagel shop and diner on a tour with the anti-smoking lobby.

Moreover, the composition of the three-member Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee was changed earlier in the year and instead of Council members Jan Perry and Janice Hahn – who both seemed quite willing to pass any extension of L.A.’s smoking bans – new members Ed Reyes and Herb Wesson had plenty of concerns about not only the signage issues, but also how it would be enforced as the draft ordinance included no provisions for a City agency to be responsible for enforcement.

The anti-smoking forces suggested that private citizens could shoot pictures or video of smokers in outdoor dining areas and turn them in, but LaBonge, instantly recognizing this as the same neighbor-turning-in-neighbor tactics which made the Gestapo so effective in Nazi Germany, was clear that he was not interested in having private citizens acting as the police.

LaBonge also decided to ask for another exemption, for restaurants which have two or more outdoor dining areas, to allow smoking on one if the other is 100 feet or more away.

The matter is now back in the hands of the City Attorney’s Office to re-draft a proposed ordinance, with a possible return hearing on December 8.

The actions in these two American cities were hardly decisive, but are noteworthy in that the anti-smoking lobby is having to work a lot harder and longer to push toward Prohibition than they may have thought they would. Opponents of smoking bans are pushing just as hard to stop their expansion, and given the impacts on freedom and business, legislators are listening.

L.A. compromise is a victory

Any adoption or expansion of a smoking ban can hardly be thought of as a win for those who cherish smoker’s rights and especially cigar rights. But the Wednesday vote of the Los Angeles City Council’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee (reported on in depth yesterday) represents a new opportunity for smokers to make a legitimate case for places of their own to enjoy a legal product.

It’s true that the approved instructions for a new ordinance still have to be turned into actual language by the City Attorney and the process could be derailed. But if the agreed-to compromise between Councilman Grieg Smith, the anti-smoking regulars and the opposition led by cigar smokers and the cigar trade with the help of Cigar Rights of America has several positive points in its favor for the future, in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

The usual tactic of the anti-smoking forces is to take whatever compromise is available if their moves are opposed and then come back in six months or a year and ask for more restrictions. One participant in the negotiations noted, however, that Smith’s staff asked the anti-smoking groups if that was their tactic and when assured that it was not, indicated that Smith would strongly oppose any future expansions of his proposal from the compromise voted on this week. Although such an expansion could be introduced by another Council member, Smith has the lead on this issue because he introduced the current proposal.

Although the new law, if passed, will create more restrictions on smokers, there aren’t many places to which it will apply. Estimates from the California Restaurant Association already indicated that more than 90% – perhaps 96-97% or more – of all Los Angeles-area restaurants with outdoor dining areas do not allow smoking on their patios because the overwhelming majority of customers do not want it. Those who argued against the ban and fought for a compromise were hard-pressed to name more than a handful (literally) of places which allow cigar smoking, even if they allow cigarette smoking!

Most importantly, the compromise language creates – possibly for the first time – a clear conceptual delineation between where smoking is to be allowed and not. The agreement voted through on Wednesday says essentially that as a matter of public policy in a largely non-smoking metropolis, smoking is to be allowed in public gathering places where minors are not allowed. Although the anti-smoking forces bellowed about the health impacts of outdoor smoking, Smith specifically brought up the issue of exposure to children in his comments and it was on that basis that the compromise was reached.

Based on this important concept, which was the foundation of Wednesday’s agreement, one can envision a cottage industry of restaurants, bars and other facilities in which smoking will be allowed if entry is age-restricted. Indoor smoking is not permitted in California because of the alleged “need to protect” workers from secondhand smoke exposure, but even this may change over time for age-restricted facilities.

From the cigar smoker’s standpoint, this kind of restriction makes some sense because most cigar smoking does not take place in the presence of minors, except at home. And now the nation’s second-largest city has taken a position which does not simply humiliate smokers further, but balances the 86% majority of non-smokers against the appropriate and recognized rights of adult smokers to enjoy a legal product.

This is a significant and exportable line of thought and fully supports the rights of smokers to enjoy themselves in adults-only facilities such as cigar shops and tobacco bars.

A collateral benefit to the vigorous opposition to the proposed outdoor dining area ban on smoking is the likelihood that the proposal to ban smoking essentially everywhere in Los Angeles introduced by Councilman Bernard Parks last August is more or less frozen, on its way to being dropped at some point in the future.

Parks proposed that smoking be prohibited anywhere people gather, which would include on the city’s streets, in common areas of apartment buildings and so on. It raised the specter of a police state in which the Los Angeles Police Department would have to spend an enormous amount of time issuing tickets . . . or ignore the law.

Although Parks’ proposal will not be dismissed and will linger on the books for some time, it would have to come before the same committee once again to be considered. And for now and some time into the future, Councilman Tom LaBonge and his Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee don’t have much interest in debating smoking again.

L.A. smoking compromise advances

A lengthy and intense debate over an outdoor smoking ban in Los Angeles was essentially resolved on Wednesday afternoon at a meeting of the City’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee.

After nearly five months of wrangling between anti-smoking supporters and cigar rights promoters, with substantial help from the Cigar Rights of America grass-roots advocacy group, the three-member committee voted unanimously to adopt a compromise motion on a modest extension of the City’s existing anti-smoking policy:

Smoking will be banned in outdoor dining areas, with the following exemptions:

(1) The new smoking policy exempts existing outdoor areas of establishments/businesses that operate as bars, nightclubs or lounges.

(2) The new policy exempts cigar shops that operate under current City planning and zoning regulations.

(3) The new policy exempts restaurants with an outdoor dining area that allows smoking when the establishment moves to a “club,” “lounge,” “bar” or “nightclub” experience and only when entry is age restricted (exemption occurs when the alcohol age restriction or “carding” begins).

To clarify, the ENTIRE establishment, not just the bar area or outdoor dining area, will be age restricted.

(4) All private events (events that are ticketed such as fundraising events, private parties) are exempt from the new policy.

(5) There will be a six-month education and warning period after final Council vote.

From this point, the City Attorney’s Office must now draft the actual language of an ordinance, which will then go to the full City Council for approval, which is essentially assured.

The back story on this compromise language demonstrated the power of showing up to protest, no matter how long the odds. There’s little doubt that when Councilman Grieg Smith made a motion to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas last July, it was expected to roll through without even a hiccup in committee. But a single protester against the ban in the first committee hearing led to a meeting of interested parties and then the process slowed down as both sides began meeting with individual Council members and their policy deputies.

The hero in this story, from the standpoint of trying to create good public policy, has to be Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee chair Tom LaBonge (4th District). He was the one who insisted on having additional meetings on the potential economic impact of such a ban and made sure that both sides were not simply heard, but had meaningful opportunities to make their case not simply in public hearings, but in private meetings where the real discussion is held.

In the end, Smith’s staff hammered out the final agreement, meeting with each advocacy group to obtain a consensus that both sides could live with this language. There is a significant opportunity for cigar advocates in other communities to build on this development in Los Angeles in the future; we’ll have a fuller analysis of the policy impact of Wednesday’s vote tomorrow.

L.A. outdoor ban argued vigorously at City Hall

This report of the "round-table" meeting on Thursday, October 16 is taken from our sister site, CigarCyclopedia.com:

About two dozen advocates on both sides of proposed smoking bans in Los Angeles argued the issue in front of Council member Tom LaBonge at Los Angeles City Hall on Thursday with no specific resolution, but with LaBonge looking for common ground.

At issue were two proposals: a motion by Council member Grieg Smith to ban smoking at all “outdoor dining areas” in the city and a motion by Council member Bernard Parks to essentially ban smoking everywhere in public and in common areas of apartment buildings.

In favor of the proposals was the expected team of about a dozen representatives of various “health advocacy” organizations such as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and others involved in the issue at various levels of activism. A representative for the California Restaurant Association was also present and spoke about the view of the CRA board.

Against the ban proposals were two groups: two representatives of the Koreatown Restaurant Association and eight members of Cigar Rights of America (including this reporter, acting as an advocate in my home city).

LaBonge, council member for the Fourth District and chair of the relevant Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee for this subject, called the meeting after an initial hearing on the Smith proposal on banning smoking in outdoor dining areas to get more input from the business community. No decisions were made and LaBonge acted as moderator for the 75-minute session; no other council members were present, although staff representatives for some council members attended as observers.

Highlights:

>> The meeting was quite tense and there were some pointed comments on both sides. However, while both sides vehemently disagreed with the other, LaBonge kept good order and kept the focus on the issues at hand. Given the passion on both sides, the discussion itself was intense, but not raucous or out of control.

>> Most of the health advocates reiterated the standard litany of complaints about smoking, especially how important it is (to them) to avoid second-hand smoke. One speaker went as far as essentially stating that she didn’t want her daughter to even see anyone smoking. Another noted that she should be able to enjoy outdoor dining at any restaurant she wanted, without the presence of second-hand smoke; the implication was obvious that she had no willingness to concede that users of legal tobacco products had any right to enjoy the same privilege of dining outdoors while enjoying tobacco. A third complained that some smoke from the outdoor area might seep inside and be a bother.

More than one speaker emphasized that the percentage of smokers in Los Angeles is very low (about 14%), intimating that such a small population need not be accommodated. (It is worth noting that in terms of minorities, the percentage of smokers in Los Angeles is larger than the percentage of African-Americans [11.2%] or Asians [10.0%] in the City per the 2000 Census.)

>> Andrew Casana, representing the California Restaurant Association, said that the CRA board had instructed him not to oppose this ban and that the association’s posture has not been to oppose such bans after it had been beaten up by the pro-ban side in the 1990s. He was asked by LaBonge to provide the percentage of restaurants in Los Angeles which have outdoor dining areas now and which do not allow smoking in these areas as a crucial item in helping LaBonge to determine what the actual needs for legislation are in this area. Casana emphasized that in any case, however, restauranteurs would not support having any responsibility for enforcement for any ban which is enacted.

>> The Korean restauranteurs noted that after the indoor smoking ban was adopted in California around 1994, many of their members went ahead and built outdoor patios for their smoking patrons. Their view was that an outdoor dining ban is not needed, since people have a choice of sitting in a non-smoking interior section, or in the outdoor area. Some restaurants with outdoor dining patios have segregated smokers and non-smokers on the patio.

>> The Cigar Rights of America attendees included Executive Vice President Jeff Borysiewicz, who traveled cross-country from Orlando, Florida to attend the meeting; Eliot Suied of Kretek International; Pete Johnson, creator of the Tatuaje and La Riqueza brands, whose company is headquartered in Los Angeles; Michael Dougherty, area sales manager for the J.C. Newman Cigar Co.; Victor Migenes, owner of 2nd Street Cigars & Gallery in Los Angeles; Taz Ahmadi, owner of The V Cut cigar shop in Los Angeles; this reporter, and Victor Franco of Ek & Ek, who provided political counsel.

>> Among the points made by the Cigar Rights group:

The California indoor smoking ban eliminated so many places where cigars can be enjoyed that implementing a ban outdoors leaves virtually nowhere to smoke outside the home (and cigar smoking is a social activity).

That there is no substantive public health threat from second-hand smoke in outdoor settings. This was challenged rather loudly, but copies of the two leading studies in this area were produced for the Council member to examine himself.

That high-end restaurants such as the Arnie Morton’s of Chicago chain value the cigar clientele so highly that it is installing - at considerable expense - smoking patios in as many locations as possible to cater to this niche group. Numerous other restaurants have made similar investments in Los Angeles and if the ban passes, those dollars will have been spent for nothing.

That cigar events which raise hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for many charities will be largely wiped out by the outdoor dining area ban and completely eliminated by the Parks proposal banning all smoking in public.

That the total ban proposed by Parks would simply shut the doors of both of the retail shops present and many more in the City.

That there are already such a high percentage of outdoor dining areas that do not allow smoking that no legislation is needed.

That if an outdoor dining area smoking ban is adopted, it will inevitably become an enforcement problem which will require the attention of the Los Angeles Police Department.

In terms of common ground, the health-advocacy side pointed out that the Smith motion intends to allow smoking in outdoor areas of bars (as opposed to restaurants) and that “cigar nights” or special smoking events could be permitted. It was suggested from the cigar-rights side that a measure which declares an outdoor dining area as either all-smoking or all-non-smoking would ensure that no non-smoker would sit in a smoking area . . . and vice versa, and would be enforced by the proprietor rather than having to be enforced by the police.

What’s the outcome?

LaBonge, to his credit, listened carefully and was even-handed with both groups. He acknowledged that as a former smoker himself, he is sensitive to the issue . . . on both sides. He also noted that while a health argument can be made for the ban, the issue of choice for adults to be able to use a legal product is also compelling.

The councilman observed that while anti-smoking advocates have been enjoying a lot of success in promoting and passing smoking bans, the point where the interests of the anti-smoking lobby is now meeting resistance from those who prize their choice to enjoy a legal product - tobacco - has been reached.

Although his opinion is that the “smoking era is over” and that widespread use of tobacco (cigarettes, anyway) may disappear over the next 25-30 years, he was also clear as that as a legislator, that day is in the future and this is 2008 in Los Angeles.

LaBonge would like to find a compromise on the Smith motion for the outdoor dining area smoking ban that is minimally acceptable to both sides represented at the meeting and will be meeting with representatives of both sides over the next three weeks to try to cobble together an agreement. It’s worth noting that he also had the vibe, even from the anti-smoking side, that the Parks proposal for a total public smoking ban was “too overwhelming” for a city the size of Los Angeles in terms of scope, likely adherence and enforcement compared with the relatively tiny towns which have adopted analogous measures such as Calabasas, California.

We will continue to monitor developments on both of these motions.

Status 10/13: Round-table meeting this week

We haven’t had much to say since activity concerning anti-smoking activity in Los Angeles since September, but the wait is over.

The only measure which is on the table now is a motion (no. 08-1544) by Council member Greig Smith (seconded by Dennis Zine) that would ban smoking in "outdoor dining areas." There is also a companion Resolution (no. 08-0002-S93) from Council members Wendy Gruel and Jose Huizar to ask the County of Los Angeles and State of California to approve similar legislation.

The matter came before the City’s Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee on September 3 and chair Tom LaBonge (4th District) asked for a meeting to discuss the economic impact of such a measure.

That long-awaited meeting is scheduled for this week, but it is not a public meeting, so please do not ask for the time and place.

Representatives of the anti-smoking crowd will be present, of course and the California Restaurant Association and California Hotel Association are fully informed concerning the issue. The grass-roots Cigar Rights of America group will also attend and is against the ban.

The motion introduced by Council member Bernard Parks to eliminate smoking almost everywhere is not yet at the committee level, as it would also come before LaBonge’s committee. The Smith motion concerning outdoor dining has to be handled first.

Status 9/26: Public calendar continues quiet

The Los Angeles City Council calendar is fairly quiet for the week of September 29-October 3 due to the beginning of the Jewish New Year. That means there will probably be no action this week on any of the smoking ban initiatives currently in front of the Council.

A meeting of the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging committee is scheduled for this week, but none of the smoking matters are listed on the agenda. An expected meeting on the impact of the proposed smoking area in outdoor dining areas has not yet taken place, but is expected soon.

Opposition to the ban has been forming. The new national grass-roots organization, Cigar Rights of America, opposes the ban, noting that events like the recent God of Fire dinner at the Hotel Bel-Air – which raised $228,600 for charities that benefit children – would be eliminated. Other groups, including the California Restaurant Association, are informed on the issue and are considering their positions.

It’s also noteworthy to see that in other cities, a pushback is being felt against anti-tobacco initiatives. In San Francisco, a ban on selling tobacco products in pharmacies has drawn two lawsuits, from Walgreen Co. (complaining that such products can be sold by large retailers such as CostCo and Wal-Mart and supermarkets, even though both have pharmacies) and Altria (complaining that the ordinance blocks a store from selling a legal product). On October 8, a fairly contentious hearing is expected in Boston on proposed new regulations which would ban outdoor smoking, sales in pharmacies and other restrictions.

Status 9/22: Quiet before the storm?

Action on the three anti-smoking items currently in process before the Los Angeles City Council has slowed for the time being:

>> On the Grieg Smith-Dennis Zine motion (no. 08-1544) for the City Attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting all smoking of tobacco products in "outdoor dining areas," the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee put off voting on the matter for 45 days so that a meeting could be held with the affected industries, notably restauranteurs. That meeting has not been held as yet, although it is anticipated soon.

>> On the Bernard Parks’ motion (no. 08-2123) to have the City Attorney draw up an ordinance to ban smoking essentially everywhere in Los Angeles, no hearings has been held and it has not, as yet, appeared on the calendar of the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee. It’s not likely they will take it up until the outdoor dining area motion has been handled.

>> On the Parks’ resolution (no. 08-002-S5130) that Los Angeles County ban smoking everywhere, the item was referred to the Rules & Government Committee and no hearing on the item has yet been scheduled. The Rules & Government Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday, September 24 has been cancelled. The next likely meeting date is Wednesday, October 8.

In the meantime, similar measures in Boston and San Francisco are also in the legislative hopper. Hearings in Boston on a measure to ban smoking outdoors will be held on October 8. A San Francisco ordinance similar to the one proposed by Parks was rejected by the County of San Francisco Supervisors and sent back to committee. Among others, a renter’s union was protesting the inclusion of a section that would allow landlords to evict tenants for smoking in common areas!

L.A. City Council bans smoking at Farmer's Markets

To the surprise of absolutely no one, the Los Angeles City Council voted 15-0 on Wednesday to ban smoking at City-permitted Farmer’s Markets.

What was more interesting were the comments from the individual Council members:

>> Wendy Greuel (2nd District), Janice Hahn (15th) and Tom LaBonge (4th) confined their remarks to the issue at hand and said that smoking should be banned at these weekly market events. Importantly, Greuel pointed out that the ban is about the marketplace and that if someone is smoking, they can move across the street or down the street. She did not make any blanket statements about prohibiting smoking everywhere at all times.

>> Herb Wesson (10th) noted that he is the only smoker among the Council members, but supports this ordinance as a way to keep food and smoking separated.

>> Bill Rosendahl (11th) said he was a reformed smoker and quit at age 39 (he’s 63 now), but had some pointed questions for Assistant City Attorney David Schulman about enforcement. While Schulman – clearly an advocate for this policy – insisted that the ordinance will be self-policing (meaning no one will violate it), but he admitted under close questioning that "if push came to shove," the Los Angeles Police Department would have to be involved in enforcement.

>> Greig Smith (12th) is an activist on this issue and made clear his position that smoking should be banned everywhere and at all times, in the U.S. and "across the world." He related a story of family members who were and are long-time smokers and have either died of lung cancer or are suffering from it. Smith also pushed for quick passage of his proposal to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas and is clearly a driver for banning smoking in Los Angeles.

The other nine Council members (including Bernard Parks) did not speak on the issue. If you want to watch the "debate," you can do so on the City of Los Angeles website using this link (jump to item no. 10 in the pull-down menu for the Farmer's Market item).

In response to Smith’s prodding, LaBonge reiterated that the outdoor dining areas ban was being discussed with the "restaurant industry" to gauge its impact.

The approved ordinance will now be sent to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for signature, which will be virtually automatic. The ordinance will be effective in a couple of months.

New bans coming to Los Angeles

Sitting and writing about stopping smoking bans is one thing. Sitting in front of a Los Angeles City Council committee and trying to have an impact is something else.

But someone had to stand up, so I did.

On Wednesday, September 3, I attended a meeting of the City’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee at City Hall. On the agenda were two anti-smoking items which had been working their way through the legislative process:

(1) The first was a draft ordinance (no. 07-1790) banning smoking at city-permitted "farmer’s markets," which had been drafted by the City Attorney following a motion by Council members Wendy Greuel, Jose Huizar and Richard Alarcon in July 2007. The legislative link is here.

The three-member committee – Tom LaBonge (chair), Janice Hahn and Jan Perry – approved the ordinance without objection and it will now be sent on to the full Council, where it will be approved quickly. It will no doubt be signed into law by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

(2) The second item was a request from June made by Council members Greig Smith and Dennis Zine (no. 08-1544) for a ban on smoking in all outdoor dining areas. The committee was being asked to approve the motion to have the City Attorney draw up an ordinance, and then that approval would then have to be agreed to by the full Council to start the drafting process. The legislative link is here.

This was expected to be a more contentious matter and there were 10 speakers. Nine were in favor of the ordinance and I was the lone opposer. My statement to the committee (which Hahn didn’t hear because she was late) included:

I am here today to oppose the proposed, unnecessary ordinances against smoking at Farmer’s Markets and in outdoor dining sections of restaurants.

I am urging you to reject these proposals as unnecessary because they pose no threat to the public health and serve only to demonize smokers.

In the U.S. Surgeon General’s 727-page report on the consequences of involuntary smoking issued in 2006, no recommendations were made concerning outdoor smoking restrictions. In fact, less than a single page in the entire report dealt with outdoor smoking; that report was concerned solely with the impact of indoor smoking. And there are no studies which demonstrate that transient encounters with outdoor smoking create any kind of health hazard.

Because there is no health threat in these outdoor settings, I submit that the City already has an ordinance which covers this issue in section 41.16 of the Municipal Code which reads, "No person shall throw, blow or otherwise scatter on any street, sidewalk, restaurant, cafe, theatre, place of amusement or other public place any snuff, or any substance which injuriously affects the olfactory nerves or which causes sneezing or coughing or otherwise injuriously affects the person."

While it is today fashionable to ban smoking almost everywhere, the proposed ordinance does not address a public health issue and will do nothing to reduce the incidence of smoking in Los Angeles. It does subject smokers, a minority in this community, to additional ridicule for consuming a legal product.

If the City were serious about trying to reduce smoking using Farmer’s Markets or outdoor restaurant sections, it could be promoting smoker’s help programs in these locations. If the City wishes to remove smokers from public view, then it must give them someplace to go which is out of public view.

But for the City to simply continue to ban smoking and then hope it will not have to enforce violations is bad policy and will make a bad law.

The promoters of the ban were the usual suspects: deputies from the Council members who proposed it, the American Lung Association, American Heart Association and so on. Hahn, although for the motion, had questions about enforcement (the Assistant City Attorney present agreed enforcement would have to be done by the Los Angeles Police Department) and LaBonge was concerned about economic impacts to restaurants.

The committee did not approve the motion to have an ordinance drafted, but LaBonge asked for and received a 45-day continuance during which time a "round table" discussion will take place which is to involve all of the stakeholders who would be effected.

But LaBonge had no doubts about the outcome. He said, during the meeting, to the anti-smoking groups, "you’re going to see success eventually" on this item. How much success will depend on how strong the push-back is from restaurants and others during the round-table hearing and then in subsequent hearings when the ordinance is actually drafted.

For myself, I count the continuance and the "round table" meeting as a small win. There is something to the notion that simply showing up is important.

We will post the time and place of the "round table" meeting as soon as we know it. For further information about this meeting, please contact the Fourth District’s legislative deputy, Young-Gi Kim at (213) 485-3337 or by electronic mail at Young-Gi.Kim@lacity.org.