Anti-Smoking Plan Study Asked

Setting aside a compromise that would allow eateries to determine their own smoking policy, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday asked for a study on the economic impact of a proposed ban on smoking in city restaurants and government buildings.

The proposed ban, which was authored by anti-smoking crusader Councilman Marvin Braude and is supported by an array of medical groups, would make Los Angeles the nation’s first large city to prohibit smoking in restaurants.

The compromise introduced by Councilman Joel Wachs came amid mounting opposition to the proposed ban from tobacco industry representatives, lobbyists, restaurant owners and employees who fear it would hurt the restaurant industry during a recession.

The Tobacco Institute, for example, has provided council members with a “point-by-point rebuttal of claims made about the effects of environmental tobacco smoke,” and a report showing that a smoking ban in San Luis Obispo caused a 26% drop in restaurant receipts, said Thomas Lauria, a spokesman for the group.

At the same time, restaurant owners led by chef Wolfgang Puck and the 3,000-member California Restaurant Assn. have urged residents across the city to contact City Council members and urge them to oppose the ban. The restaurant operators believe the ban could drive customers to neighboring cities.

Wachs’ compromise, which won support from several council members who oppose an outright ban, would allow restaurant owners to post a sign at the entrance indicating whether their establishment is smoke-free.

In restaurants permitting smoking, the required nonsmoking area would be 60% of seating capacity.

“Some restaurants currently choose to be entirely non-smoking establishments, and that is a proper exercise of choice on their part,” Wachs said in his motion. “Prospective customers should also have the choice to patronize either type of restaurant.”

That scenario would not differ greatly from current city laws governing Los Angeles’ 11,000 restaurants, which are required to set aside 50% of their seating area for nonsmoking. Restaurants are also free to ban smoking.

By a 13-1 vote, the council approved a motion from Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas to instruct the city legislative analyst and the chief administrative officer to prepare a report on the potential for job losses and reduced sales if the proposed ban is passed.

On March 3, the council will consider whether to ask the city attorney’s office to draft an ordinance on Braude’s proposal. The council also has the option of voting on Wachs’ compromise.

“That study is going to be very important in the state and country in blowing away fabricated fears the tobacco industry tries to drum up,” said Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco who testified in support of the proposed ban.

“There have been no major objective studies of economic impact of smoking bans,” Glantz said. “The limited number of economic impact studies conducted so far, however, indicate such legislation will have either no effect on business or perhaps be good for it.”

Braude agreed, telling the council: “The evidence will convince you there should be a ban on smoking in restaurants.”

Dismissing predictions of economic disaster as “hysteria generated by the tobacco industry,” Braude said his main concern is protecting restaurant patrons from passive smoke, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded is a cancer-causing pollutant.

“The tobacco industry is engaged in tactics of manipulation and propaganda to divert attention away from the health issue,” Braude said.