Lakewood Drafts Mild Smoking Law Giving Firms a 3-Way Choice

Times Staff Writer

Rhonda Tiday took a deep drag on her cigarette before she launched into a defense of her right to smoke in public.

“I’m not putting a cigarette into somebody’s nose and saying, ‘Here, smoke this,’ ” Tiday said as she watched her young son on one of the Lakewood Center Mall’s kiddie rides.

But her close friend, Nikki Harrell, jumped into the conversation with the nonsmoker’s rebuttal: “If I don’t smoke, I feel like why should I have my air violated?”

The disagreement between the two young mothers is typical of the philosophical battle between smokers and nonsmokers as an increasing number of anti-smoking regulations appear on law books.


Lakewood, which is considering joining the ranks of Southland cities that have passed no-smoking ordinances, is striving to satisfy both sides of the smoking debate by taking a “middle-of-the-road approach,” Mayor Jacqueline Rynerson said.

Next week, the council will introduce a no-smoking ordinance that has garnered the support of local business owners. It would allow them to choose a smoking restriction that best suits their establishment--or to reject one altogether.

By considering an ordinance that would limit smoking only on city-owned property, the council hopes to avoid some of the bitter debates that have erupted over tough no-smoking ordinances in other cities, Lakewood officials say.

Under the proposed new law, all owners of commercial, public, educational and religious buildings would be required to post one of three signs indicating the establishment’s smoking policy: no smoking, smoking in designated areas only or smoking allowed.


“We believe it will satisfy everyone,” Rynerson said.

Councilman Larry Van Nostrum agreed. “I think the ordinance is fine. It’s an ordinance we can all live with,” he said.

The relatively mild Lakewood ordinance was drafted despite evidence that an overwhelming majority of Lakewood residents are nonsmokers who favor mandatory no-smoking areas in retail stores, restaurants and the workplace.

During a recent study session, local business owners praised the proposed law “because you leave it to the business to decide,” businessman Charles Hallums said. Hallums is a spokesman for the Lakewood Center Merchants Assn.


Criticism Expressed

But the proposed ordinance was criticized by some because it falls short of ordering designated smoking areas for businesses, even though it states that “nonsmokers should have a right to be free from exposure to second-hand smoke from those who use tobacco.”

Councilman Robert Wagner said the city should establish stricter guidelines for public smoking. “The expectation is (business owners) will respond in some reasonable fashion” to provide nonsmoking areas for nonsmokers, Wagner said during the study session. “Suppose they don’t do that?”

In a later interview, Wagner struck a more optimistic note, saying that he would “like to presume businesses and employers will view this (ordinance) as the excuse to take action, whereas before, they may have been hesitant. I hope they also will respond to the pressures that are already being exerted by employees who would like to have smoke-free environments.”


In a telephone interview last week, Van Nostrum said other cities’ stronger anti-smoking measures have fueled controversy over government’s right to impose restrictions on a private enterprise. “Sometimes we politicians have a tendency to put too many regulations on people,” Van Nostrum said.

Other Cities More Strict

Tougher no-smoking ordinances in cities such as Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and nearby Long Beach require restaurants to establish no-smoking sections, for example. Some ordinances restrict smoking in the workplace, while others ban smoking in hospitals and other health institutions.

Sandi Ruyle, assistant to the Lakewood city administrator, said the proposed ordinance would ban smoking in all city facilities, except in designated areas. Ruyle helped prepare the draft ordinance with City Atty. John S. Todd. “I think it’s pretty strong in that regard,” Ruyle said. “It was the council’s decision to set up a model to restrict smoking” in indoor city facilities.


There are exceptions. Smoking would be allowed in city-owned vehicles if all passengers approve, in single offices in which the occupant is a smoker, and in a work area where a supervisor determines that “location and ventilation will be the least offensive to other employees and the public.”

She said Lakewood’s proposed no-smoking ordinance also would require “every business in town” to post the signs, which the city will provide free. “Every business in Lakewood will be affected,” Ruyle said.

Ventilation Exemption

A similar ordinance was drafted in February. The earlier draft would have required all business owners to improve ventilation systems in offices with poor air flow. But the current version carries a “grandfather clause” that would exempt existing ventilation systems from the rule. The revised ordinance also would require state-licensed, home child-care operators to post a sign.


The revisions were recommended by a city-sponsored committee, which was formed in early March to study the feasibility of the no-smoking law. The nine-member committee was made up of community and business leaders.

At the recent session to study the smoking ordinance, Planning Commissioner Diane DuBois reported that a recent survey suggests that 81% of residents and business owners support smoking regulations in public areas.

However, only 56% of businesses currently have a policy restricting smoking. Many of those policies are ineffective, however, officials say, because they are not required by law. At the Lakewood Center Mall, for instance, no-smoking signs are posted throughout the Woolworth store. But the signs are often ignored, assistant manager James Buschta said.

“It’s an unenforced policy here,” Buschta said, “because of the negative advertising it creates. People would leave and not come back here, so we don’t push (the no-smoking rule).”


Violators Could Be Fined

Under the Lakewood ordinance, business owners failing to post a sign would be guilty of a misdemeanor, Ruyle said. Misdemeanor offenses carry fines up to $100.

The two-part survey also concluded that “Lakewood residents are predominantly nonsmokers,” said DuBois, who headed the panel. According to the survey, only 19% of Lakewood residents smoke, and even smokers agree that local retail stores should have mandatory nonsmoking areas, said DuBois, a smoker. She added that only 25% of respondents “would allow smoking anywhere” in their place of business.”

The mail-in portion of the survey, conducted by Sprint Polls, polled 1,900 businesses, churches and community agencies. Results were based on 478 returned forms. The polling company also interviewed 400 Lakewood residents.


“The committee concludes from these survey results that the Lakewood community is expressing support for smoking regulations in businesses and other facilities open to the general public,” DuBois said. “We’re pleased that the no-smoking ordinance seems to meet the need of the community.”