So San Antonio has joined the list of cities with tougher bans on smoking in public places, though not without some confusion and a sense on both sides of the issue that no one is happy about it.
Devastated after a bitter loss in 1997, [public health advocates had] been waiting for years for a charismatic champion with consensus-building skills. So when then-Councilman Ed Garza announced during his 2001 mayoral campaign that he’d like to revisit the issue, advocates began mobilizing and the Smoke Free San Antonio Coalition was born.
The coalition assured Garza it had the expertise and the medical research if he could provide the leadership. He took the issue on, boldly vowing this spring to seek a total ban on smoking in all public places.
But by last week’s council vote on a new ordinance, the enthusiasm and energy surrounding the alliance long since had fizzled.
The mayor wasn’t returning frantic phone calls from coalition leaders eager for details of a proposed council compromise. The group’s chairwoman, Suzanne Lozano, turned up the rhetoric against her one-time champion.
“We are disappointed in the mayor’s whole lack of leadership,” she said, blasting Garza for wasting time on “a watered-down ordinance that goes entirely in the wrong direction.”
The broken relationship stands as a visible sign of the divisive nature of the smoking ban battle, which isn’t over yet. The council plans to revisit the issue this week because language was mistakenly omitted from the ordinance.
The day after the vote, Garza announced that the council had intended to approve an ordinance allowing smoking in designated dining sections enclosed by four solid walls. Instead, the council voted to isolate restaurant smoking within sections surrounded by three walls and a partial fourth wall.
Overall, the council opted against an all-out ban on smoking and instead voted to tweak the City Code regarding lighting up in public.
Smoking will be permitted in stand-alone bars, bingo parlors, pool halls and meeting rooms in restaurants, hotels and motels that are used for private functions.
It will be allowed in tobacco retail stores and bars, enclosed dining areas reserved for smokers and on restaurant patios.
To enter an area where smoking is permitted, those under 18 must be with a parent or guardian. Signs must be posted at establishments indicating whether smoking is allowed. If so, the health effects of secondhand smoke must be listed.
Neither of the main sides in the debate, the anti-smoking coalition nor the San Antonio Restaurant Association, is pleased over the changes. Compliance with the new ordinance will be costly and ineffective, they say.
Got all that? I can see why people are unhappy, and I have to think that Ed Garza is kicking himself for ever bringing this up in the first place. And given San Antonio’s history trying to get its water supply flouridated, is anyone really surprised that this thing turned into a farce?
Personally, I’m torn about this. Like most nonsmokers, I hate cigarette smoke and will do almost anything to avoid it. I love the fact that the Mucky Duck offers non-smoking shows. It’s a beautiful thing to arrive home after two hours in a bar and not have to immediately strip naked, burn my clothes, and hose myself down so that I don’t scare the dog and kill Tiffany’s houseplants. The last time I attended an Asylum Street Spankers show at Rudz, which has no such offerings, the smoke got so thick at one point that the band, almost all of whom smokes, asked everyone to refrain from lighting up for awhile. I still cough just thinking about it.
On the other hand, I have a hard time telling a private establishment that it cannot allow a legal activity to take place within its walls. I can’t help but think that ordinances like this are not just a net loser for most bars, they’re a big loser for them. (Not that I’ve ever seen any evidence one way or the other – I suspect that once these laws get passed, everyone moves on and no one really tries to measure their impact. Feel free to correct me if I’m all wet about this.) I’m not forced to enter a smoky bar, and I’m not prevented from telling the bar’s owner that I’d patronize his place more often if I didn’t think it was significantly shortening my lifespan.
I suppose San Antonio will find out for itself if the effort was worth it. It’s a tourist town, so what it loses in barflies it may make up in families, I don’t know. I do know that Ed Garza has his work cut out for him if he wants to live this experience down and aim for higher office some day.
If you want to see a real anti-smoking law, come back home to NYC. Basically, you can’t smoke indoors anymore unless it’s in your own home. Unfortunately, the bar and restaurant owners have been complaining about the loss of business. On the other hand, people are now complaining about all of the smokers outside.
“It’s a beautiful thing to arrive home after two hours in a bar and not have to immediately strip naked, burn my clothes, and hose myself down so that I don’t scare the dog and kill Tiffany’s houseplants.”
Now, that’s a visual I don’t need to see. 😉
“On the other hand, I have a hard time telling a private establishment that it cannot allow a legal activity to take place within its walls.” – CK
Well, it’s a legal activity only if the city council chooses to make it so. There are lots of legal activites on which there are time and place restrictions.
“I’m not forced to enter a smoky bar, and I’m not prevented from telling the bar’s owner that I’d patronize his place more often if I didn’t think it was significantly shortening my lifespan. – CK
That is valid as long as we’re talking about bars. My girlfriend worked for a company that leased space in a private building belonging to another firm. The building owners permitted smoking in their suite. Neither the hallways nor the a/c were even minimally an impediment to the transmission of smoke. My partner’s clients had to wait in a smoky waiting room, then walk through a frequently smoke-filled hallway to reach her office. And under Houston’s antismoking ordinance (this was perhaps 5 years ago), there was not one thing she could do about it… we researched the matter. Eventually, she found another job rather than face the daily cloud of smoke in her workplace.
FWIW, I have all but given up going to hear live jazz, which I love, entirely and only because of the smoke. I take no position against the right to smoke in one’s home… people can kill themselves however they wish, and my father and mother chose smoking as their means… but I really regret missing all that jazz.
Yeah, I should be clearer that I’m really talking about bars. I don’t think there’s any real objection to restrictions in office buildings, where most of us have no choice to be.
It’s hard to know the impact, isn’t it?
There are maybe a handful of us at the alt-country shows I go to who are NOT smokers. It gets a bit hazy at times! But nobody is forcing me to go. Likewise, nobody is forcing the rest of the (smoking) patrons to go. And if they STOP going, live alt-country music could take a hit. Will they stop going is the big question, huh?
Not that it matters much in SA, since that’s not a huge alt-country town anyway….
Maybe Bill Mensa White has the answers we all want? 🙂
If Bill White is as smart as I believe he is, he won’t touch this with a ten foot pole. 🙂
Check out tobaccoscam.com — in California, bars haven’t suffered from smoking bans, and smoking is down in a big way from the anti-smoking legislation over the last 2 decades. This yields big health benefits and savings in health costs. Cigarette smoking isn’t a harmless pastime.
Check out tobaccoscam.com — in California, bars haven’t suffered from smoking bans, and smoking is down in a big way from the anti-smoking legislation over the last 2 decades. This yields big health benefits and savings in health costs. Cigarette smoking isn’t a harmless pastime.
The bars haven’t suffered in California because they found a work around. You can’t smoke in a public bar, but you can in a private club. To enter the bar you have to become a member of the private club with a minimal membership fee.