Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Battle Over Smoking Ban Is Heating Up

In one of his final acts in office, Mayor Tom Bradley on June 24 signed into law a ban on smoking in all of Los Angeles’ indoor restaurants. The law, which is scheduled to go into effect Monday, carries penalties of six months in jail or a $1,000 fine for restaurant owners and $50 fines for scofflaw smokers. Arguing that the ordinance would hurt business, a coalition of restaurant and hotel operators launched a petition drive within days to place the law on hold until voters can decide its fate. The group has until Saturday to gather the 58,275 signatures necessary to stall the ban under a little-known provision in the City Charter.

*

Should Los Angeles ban smoking in all indoor restaurants?

Marvin Braude, city councilman who spearheaded the ban and has accused the tobacco industry of funding the petition drive:

“I think it’s a highly immoral thing for the tobacco industry to try to circumvent the actions of the City Council. In effect, they are trying to buy the right to overturn the ordinance, which has already been signed into law. I urge everyone not to sign the petition.”

Terry B. Friedman, state assemblyman who has sponsored a bill that would limit smoking statewide in most indoor workplaces, including nearly all restaurants:

“AB 13 creates one uniform, protective statewide law and preempts the patchwork of local ordinances around the state with which businesses must currently comply. It protects all workers from environmental tobacco smoke and all employers from claims related to environmental tobacco smoke.”

Curtis R. Tucker, Jr., state assemblyman whose competing bill, AB 996, would allow restaurant owners to designate smoking areas but would prevent cities from enacting new smoking bans:

“My bill represents an alternative to both a complete statewide ban and a confusing multitude of local ordinances. In today’s recessionary economy, the last thing business owners need is another mandate, particularly one that could cost them business.”

Elizabeth Burns, president of the California Restaurant Assn.:

“Restaurant owners simply can no longer cope with the growing jumble of local smoking regulations. This landslide of legislation confuses and annoys the public, while achieving little in terms of improved public health. In light of this fact, Friedman’s bill provides the best alternative. It establishes one statewide standard, does not require management or employees to act as cigarette police and takes the lawsuit factor out of the game.”

Thomas Lauria, spokesman for the Tobacco Institute, which represents manufacturers of cigarettes, smoking and chewing tobacco and snuff:

“A number of studies have attempted to quantify exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants, and most have reported extremely low exposures. One study estimates that a restaurant employee would require nearly 200 hours of continuous exposure to be exposed to the nicotine equivalent of a single cigarette.”

Alan Zovar, coordinator of the Task Force for Safe and Healthful Air, which seeks the elimination of secondhand smoke from public places:

“Safe air is good business. Historically, no cities have lost significant business due to smoking bans. Los Angeles should lead the way in providing a smoke-free environment for their patrons and employees. After all, there are four times more nonsmokers than smokers in Los Angeles and more than 25% of the smokers prefer to dine in a smoke-free environment.”