Know where to smoke? Maybe not. Ordinance can be confusing, and City Council may broaden the ban.
No one was smoking inside Taco Milagro on Kirby when city inspector Jeff Conn took a seat at a table during a recent weekday lunch hour. But Conn, the Health Department’s lone smoking-ordinance inspector, had come prepared. He pulled a small tube out of his binder, puffed some artificial smoke into the air, then watched to see if it wafted from one area of the restaurant to another. Conn was investigating a complaint that the food and drink establishment had violated the city’s smoking ordinance, which prohibits smoking in dining areas of restaurants. Operators of restaurants that also have bars must take measures to keep smoke from drifting into dining areas. But Taco Milagro was exempt from the law, managers told him, because it qualifies as a bar, where patrons are allowed to smoke, and do.
The Houston City Council passed an ordinance in March, 2005 that banned smoking in restaurants throughout the city…or did it? In their typical “let’s be all things to all people” manner, the Council ended up passing an ordinance that really did try to be all things to all people. But what happens when you pass a poorly-written, virtually unenforceable ordinance and then create exactly ONE enforcement position? Well, you end up with the current clusterf—k that is Houston’s non-smoking ordinance.
The U.S. surgeon general’s call last month for completely smoke-free workplaces, including restaurants and bars, bolstered efforts by some City Council members to enact a more comprehensive ban citywide. The current ordinance, passed in March 2005 and enacted last September, requires the council to revisit the issue by this September.
The public health committee, headed by Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, is expected to begin hearings in mid-August.
“Most people know that we have a smoking ban in stand-alone restaurants,” Alvarado said. “We just don’t have enough inspectors to police it.” She expects the public will become better informed if council approves a stricter ban, which has her support, she said.
Between September, when the ordinance went into effect, and June, the Health Department received 243 complaints and investigated 190. Only seven of those inspections resulted in citations; six were to restaurants that allowed smokers to light up in dining areas. The other was issued to an individual who refused to stop smoking within 25 feet of a building entrance, a rule that has been in effect since 2002.
Three of those restaurants paid fines of $255, according to the Health Department. The other cases were either dismissed or are still pending.
The problem here, at least from where I sit, is the City Council’s refusal to do the right thing and set solid and enforceable limits when it comes to second hand smoke. Either ban smoking or don’t, but stop with the half-measures, willya? OK, so I’m not exactly the most objective sort when it comes to the issue of secondhand smoke. I’m openly and admittedly extremely militant when it comes to being put in a position when I’m exposed to someone else’s cigarette smoke.
The reality, though, is that non-smoking ordinances work. Business owners will understandalby piss and moan about being worried that they’ll lose business, but studies show that non-smoking ordinances generally do not negatively impact businesses. In fact, in many cases businesses actually realize an INCREASE in receipts. Apparently, people like not being exposed to second-hand smoke. Who knew??
With that in mind, isn’t it about time for the Houston City Council to grow a pair and do what needs to be done to protects the rights and health of nonsmokers? You’re damn right it is.
It's been quite a while since Adam posted a comment here, hasn't it?
I think this is yet another example of what happens when you use laws and bureaucracies to try and accomplish things that are better left to free markets and free choice.
With smoking bans, the people cede property rights to the government. When the laws fail, rather than admitting failure, the answer is invariably "we need more laws and the government needs more power."
Heading out right now to buy an instant lottery ticket. Bob and I agree once again. This stogie smoker enjoys his full-flavored and full-odored puffs. It is the height of irony when I am around cigarette smokers who object to my lighting up. My nurse-trained wife agrees with the whole idea of regulating private behaviors like smoking, but then I ask her what will she do for an income (and I for money with which to purchase coronas) when all of us are healthy as hell and have no use for hospitals? And to point out the ridiculously obvious, why pass a law only to have one person hired to enforce it in a city of two million people? We have literally hundreds of cops enforcing speed limits and what good do they do?
The City of Lubbock (bigawd) Texas very seldom does A N Y T H I N G that you can point to as preferring public health over political convenience, but when they wrote their smoking ban three years ago, the provisions were thus:
In any restaurant, if you want to have a smoking section, you shall enclose it and separately ventilate it to the outside air with a separate air exchange system, and you shall not situate it astraddle the entry so that nonsmokers are forced to pass through it to reach the nonsmoking section. If you wish to be a sports bar or a bar, you shall not allow patrons under 21 after 3 p.m. and you shall not allow children unaccompanied by an adult, and you shall not cover more than 900 square feet and you shall draw at least 51% of your revenue from the sale of alcohol.
"Owners" (most of whom leased the buildings) bitched and moaned about how this was interfering with their property rights and cutting into their sales.
Two weeks ago, the first full year after the "grace period" ended, a local TV news outfit surveyed the restaurants and bars left in town.
Be damned if their business hadn't increased, and their profits gone up, and their turnover gone down (hell of a deal: the service staff is healthier and less likely to tell you to shove your ratf**king job sideways if they don't go home in clothes stinking of cigarettes -- whodathunkit?) -- and the numbers of customers have risen.
Smoking bans work. It's that simple.
You would have to admit that Texas is one schizophrenic state when it comes to figuring out the legitimate role of government in protecting citizens. We have bans on smoking in restaurants, fearing the invasion of second hand smoke, but permit motorcycle operators to ride without protective headgear. We seem a tad inconsistent in our concern for the welfare of individuals.