Apparently, the new proposals to strengthen Houston’s anti-smoking ordinance do not go far enough for some people.
The draft ordinance released late Wednesday would extend the smoking ban to stand-alone bars and other public, enclosed workplaces but would allow smoking on outdoor patios, in cigar shops and at certain private functions.
The ban does not extend to private residences unless they are used as day care or health care facilities.
“There’s inconsistency in the logic,” Councilman Peter Brown said during a meeting of the public health committee. “We’re saying we want to protect the public and those who don’t want to breathe smoke; we’re going to protect you, except we’re not going to do it in this case and this case and this case.”
[…]
Elena Marks, White’s health-policy director, said the proposal strikes a balance between the rights of smokers and nonsmokers.
“What we have tried to do is carefully craft an ordinance that would balance the freedoms of people, including employees, to be free of smoke, as well as allowing some places where people who do smoke can still congregate and smoke,” she said.
But members of the Greater Houston Restaurant Association, which recently announced its support for a total smoking ban, said Thursday they oppose this specific proposal because it does not meet their expectations.
“There’s just too many exceptions,” said spokeswoman Sue Davis. The group agrees outdoor patios should be exempt from the ban but does not want to see any indoor exemptions, she said.
[…]
Besides patios, proposed exemptions include smoking-designated hotel rooms, tobacco shops, private functions held by nonprofit groups in their own facilities and private functions held in some rooms of hotels and convention centers.
Smoking would be banned in stand-alone bars, bingo facilities, pool halls, sports arenas and restrooms. It also would be banned at some covered-seating areas, including bus stops and outdoor sports stadiums, and within 25 feet of entrances to enclosed areas where it is prohibited.
“Why is it not a health issue on a patio, but it is a health issue everywhere else?” Councilwoman Pam Holm asked.
Better ventilation? With all due respect, I think that question answers itself, and is the reason why no one has seriously proposed banning smoking outdoors. I think the exceptions that have been proposed are very reasonable and narrowly tailored to situations that will likely never affect a dedicated smoke-avoider. I think the people who are objecting to this should take a deep breath (preferably in a smoke-free environment) and get a grip. I agree with what Elena Marks is saying, and I hope the holdouts will give her words some extra consideration.
One more thing:
The committee met a day after a federal judge struck down part of Austin’s smoking ordinance, saying a bar owner can’t be held liable if a customer smokes in a facility that has clearly posted “no smoking” signs.
A Houston city attorney and a health official said since the ruling was based on the wording of Austin’s ordinance, it was unlikely to affect how Houston enforces its ban.
“Austin’s ordinance wasn’t worded well,” said Marilyn Byrd, chief of the Health Department’s occupational health bureau, who oversees enforcement of the existing ordinance. “I’m hoping we won’t have any trouble with the enforcement of this.”
The Houston proposal would require the “person in control” of an area where smoking is prohibited to ask anyone smoking there to stop. The owner could not be held liable if the individual did not comply, as long as “no smoking” signs were visible.
“If the person fails to stop smoking, we don’t put any additional responsibilities on the owner to kick them off the premises or stop serving them,” said Kuruvilla Oommen, assistant city attorney.
Again, that sounds very reasonable, and in my non-lawyerly opinion seems to be in line with Judge Sparks’ ruling. I say it’s time for the people who want to advance this ball to recognize that they’re getting just about everything they want and finish the job. The complaints that have been raised so far are not persuasive and just sound petty. Enough already.
Surely I am not the only Houstonian who believes most of our elected officials must have lost all contact with reality. Here we are, spending so much time and political energy debating a ban on smoking in public places, while our city is being overrun by illegal immigrants. Talk about misplaced priorities. No wonder most voters believe government is so dysfunctional and no longer relevant to their lives
Dennis,
Is that really a local problem? I’m not sure I want different locales to have their own immigration policies within the country. Are you absolutely sure the Mayor of Eagle Pass will have an immigration policy that suits your needs?
Maybe they’re not dealing with immigration in the City Council because they believe that in a federal system the local authorities shouldn’t involve themselves in federal matters without a request from federal authorities.
But then again, I’m not a supporter of the New Big Government Party, so what do I know?
I agree with Kuff. From his earlier post, it appears the Houston ordinance strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of smokers and non-smokers.
But there are always those who are never satisfied. On the one hand, there are the anti-smoking zealots Kuff describes, who apparently want to bring the vaunted model of the war on drugs to tobacco. Yeah, that’ll work as well for tobacco as it has for illegal drugs.
And on the other hand are some smokers (and misguided Libertarians) who just can’t seem to understand that not everyone is willing to take even a fraction of the health risks smokers take, particularly for an experience – inhaling tobacco smoke – many find unpleasant to begin with.
Here we are, spending so much time and political energy debating a ban on smoking in public places, while our city is being overrun by illegal immigrants. Talk about misplaced priorities.
Define “overrun.” And I think you should keep in mind that immigration policy is a federal responsibility, not a local one. If the immigration situation isn’t to your liking, shouldn’t you direct your ire toward Congress and/or President Bush, rather than the Houston City Council? Talk about misplaced anger.