A Nonsmoking City of Angels? : Well-Intentioned City Council Ban Simply Doesn’t Cover a Wide Enough Territory

One of the more odious forms of urban terrorism occurs in densely populated places where people who smoke cigarettes or cigars or pipes inflict their dirty addiction on innocents who happen to be sharing their airspace. The Los Angeles City Council would put an end to such terrorism in one densely populated place at least: the city of Los Angeles. Smoking would be banned in the city’s 10,000 restaurants.

It would not be an unwarranted measure by any means. Smoke that nonsmokers involuntarily inhale is often called “secondhand smoke,” and they are victims of “passive smoking.” Before long the federal Environmental Protection Agency may declare tobacco smoke a carcinogen: It has two draft documents under internal review that propose just that. These documents must undergo “public and scientific review” before secondhand smoke is officially designated a carcinogen. But however long this process takes, the drift of contemporary research is certainly not favorable to smokers who believe they are only hurting themselves by puffing in public.

The Los Angeles city measure, championed by Councilman Marvin Braude, is tempting. It would put the city near the lead of the pack among jurisdictions cracking down on public smoking. It would clear the air, so to speak, on a matter of mounting public concern. Our only reservation with the proposed ban is not with its desirability, which is immense, but with its applicability, which is too limited, and with its economic impact, which is worrisome. Two years ago a similarly well-intentioned anti-smoking ordinance in Beverly Hills--the only jurisdiction in the area with such a ban--precipitated a drop-off in business at a number of restaurants and was lifted after a short time.

The specter of a comparable decline in bookings has Los Angeles city restaurant owners fighting this measure, even though many would accept a ban if it were countywide, or even statewide. Feeling singled out, they fear the measure will drive smoking diners to competing establishments outside the city proper, while not luring inside an offsetting number of nonsmokers. City restaurants already have separate dining sections for smokers as mandated by law; many use state-of-the-art air circulation systems.

On balance, a uniform ban, at least countywide, is the wiser public-policy approach than a piecemeal, city-only ban that will hurt many businesses at a time when the business climate is not much healthier than overall Los Angeles air quality.