No-Smoking Law in Beverly Hills

As a restaurant owner and proponent of the free enterprise system, I’d like to comment on the recent actions taken by the cities of Beverly Hills and Aspen, Colo. On March 16, my Huntington Beach restaurant, voluntarily enacted a restaurant-wide ban on smoking. In contrast to the Beverly Hills Restaurant Assn., we obviously feel there are numerous benefits--both to our patrons and to our business.

The issue of smoking in public places is a mandate from the people to our elected officials to protect our health and safety. Although individuals don’t have to go to restaurants to feed themselves, they do have to go to work, employ public transportation such as buses and airplanes, and go into stores, shopping complexes and public buildings.

Since it has been proven that “sidestream” cigarette smoke is harmful to one’s health, I believe it is the job of our elected officials to protect their constituency from harmful smoke in the areas they must frequent. Therefore, I don’t believe that the issue is one of free enterprise, but of government fulfilling a commitment.

The second issue is one of smokers’ reactions to the controversy. It’s been proven that the nicotine in cigarette smoke is addictive. For the most part, addicts do not make rational decisions while they are under the influence; therefore, it is unrealistic to assume that a cigarette smoker can rationally make a decision not to affect the health of others in a public place. It is not a question of their desire, but of their addiction; it is not a minority versus majority question, but one of health and safety.

That 70% of the population does not smoke is irrelevant. Even if the percentages were reversed, the fact remains that cigarette smoking is damaging. I would still choose to ban smoking in my restaurant; I believe I have an obligation as a restaurateur to my patrons’ health and safety. I believe government has the same obligation to its constituency.

WILLIAM W. LANGE

Newport Beach