Hold on to your butts:
Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the only physician on the City Council, is studying smoking ordinances in other cities with an eye toward proposing what would be Houston's first outright ban on smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants.
"The ban would be on smoking in public places — anyplace that conducts business and where people would gather, not in residences," she said. "Smoking and secondhand smoke are dangerous for all Houstonians, and that's why we are looking to move forward."
"Not in residences." Man, that's a relief. And before you laugh, remember that Houston is the city where two gay men were prosecuted under the state's anti-sodomy laws for something they were doing in their own damn house.
Mayor White has said he isn't yet behind a full ban, while others on the City Council are a bit more eager:
But Councilman Gordon Quan believes that, if proposed, such an ordinance has a strong chance of passage.
"I don't know how the sides are going to line up, but I was at a Quality of Life Committee meeting a while ago, and there was a lot of support," he said Tuesday.
This doesn't surprise me, but only because I doubt there are many 2-pack a day types on the Quality of Life Committee. Similarly, I could claim there's widespread support for bringing an NHL franchise to Houston by polling the attendees at my Bring an NHL Franchise to Houston Club meetings.
Houston is the only major metropolitan area in Texas that has not banned smoking in either eateries or workplaces, although many Houston businesses voluntarily have limited smoking.
The city does ban smoking in elevators, restrooms and certain retail establishments; requires workplaces to accommodate nonsmoking employees; and sets special ventilation standards for places that allow smoking.
El Paso barred cigarettes inside all workplaces, restaurants, and bars in 2002; Dallas followed with a restaurant ban in 2003; San Antonio and Austin banned workplace smoking earlier this year.
I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other about this. Like Chuck, I have a hard time thinking of any restaurants I frequent where cigarette smoke is noticeable, if not already banned outright. My main sympathies in this regard concern the employees of restaruants and bars, who don't have the option of just moving tables or going to another establishment.
I've never understood the concept of an ouright ban on smoking in bars, however. Our own Mucky Duck has demonstrated the workability of featuring non-smoking shows by many musical acts, while others have implemented similar restrictions for the table areas. If enough customers bitch about something, owners tend to listen. And there'll always be places you can go to get your cancer on.
They found an interesting workaround in Southern California (which would unfortunately never work in Houston's climate). Because of the smoking ban, none of the bars there have ashtrays, so the bartender just cut empty beer cans in half and gave them to the regulars. The doors and windows were usually open, so the smoke never accumulated. The only catch was that the bartender would claim ignorance if any cops stopped in.
I don't spend enough time in bars anymore to really claim much of a vested interest in this. Sure, the price for spending an evening throwing a few back with friends might be coming home smelling like Mickey Rourke, but no one can convince me that one night breathing a little secondhand smoke is going to give me insta-tumors. I'm more worried about the quality of the air itself in this town.
Besides, I concur with just about everyone else who's written about this that Houston's City Council has bigger problems than whether or not I want to hurt my lungs while I poison my liver and brain.
Smoking in bars makes the baby Jesus cry. I've been in many a bar looking at some idiot blowing suspended particulate matter into several thousands of dollars worth of delicate sound gear and I'm always glad we're renting it. But I'm not renting my lungs.
I agree that the city has other issues, but smoking in bars is a health risk to bartenders, waitstaff, musicians and soundmen. Barring the dilettantes who have day jobs with insurance, these people are likely to be taking their blackened lungs to public hospitals. Smokers hardly pay enough 'sin tax' to pay for the real, measurable costs they transfer to taxpayers in terms of the harm they do to public health, and that's not counting the misery they impose on the waitstaff. It's like any other kind of pollution and shouldn't be OK just because the polluters think it should be OK.
We'll make the smoking bars 'jukebox only,' then. And have robot bartenders.
Or just keep taxing the hell out of the things until people quit. Either works for me.
Michael: I certainly understand and respect your perspective. There are two main reasons I don't agree with it.
First, I don't believe employees (such as bartenders, entertainers, waitstaff, etc.) should be able to dictate what the owner of an establishment should or should not be able to do with their place.
Second, it isn't like bartenders, waitstaff, or entertainers started their respective careers in a smoke-free environment, only to have the scene drastically change on them for the worse. If it was there before you came along, I have a hard time sympathizing if you choose that work environment knowing what it was like up-front.
For the record, I don't smoke (any more). And I can't stand eating when other people smoke. So I'm not trying to pick a fight. In fact, I partly agree with you, at least where food service is the primary purpose of the joint. But it strikes me as mildly indignant to lash out at smokers who, if the bar were forced to be smoke-free, might not otherwise pay the cover charge to enter the establishment you are playing at.
I do, however, believe venues should offer smoke-free performances (a la the Mucky Duck). Or, at the very least, provide adequate ventilation for everyone's sake. And yes, I also agree we should tax the hell out of the wicked stuff.
Hmm. Coal miners could've chosen not to work in the pits, either. The economy being what it is, I'm happy they're working at all, and I think that it's pretty unsympathetic to expect them to work in harmful conditions that others are protected from by law. I'm not convinced that office workers need to be protected from smoke in the breakroom but bartenders don't need to be protected from smoke every damn place.
Besides, if you like the taste of beer, you should be happy to avoid the smoke. It dulls the sense of taste.
When they suggested banning smoking in bars here in NYC, there was a HUGE uproar. "No one will go to bars anymore! The businesses will die!" Well, as time has gone on, that has proven an unnecessary fear. And now I can go have a drink after school with my friends without going home smelling disgusting.
I have to say I'm right there with Michael on this. I don't know why it's such a big deal to have a "smoke-free workplace" if you work in an office, but screw the bartenders and waiters of the world, it's just part of the deal. Office workers didn't start out in a smoke-free environment either, but they eventually got it when it was deemed to be a good idea.
The whole smoke-free environment thing has become one of my favorite aspects about living in this city. What a joy to go to a restaurant and not be asked, "Smoking or non?" When I come home to visit Texas, it's a question that always takes me aback.
And for the love of Mike, would someone PLEASE start enforcing the regulation that says if you smoke outside a building that is smoke-free, you have to stand 25 feet from the door? (Which I know varies by state.) It's enfuriating to have to push through the cloud of smoke to get in or out of the door.
Hell, alcohol is bad for you and makes you a danger to others, but public drinking isn't going away. Hallelujah, pass the beer.
I've never been more than a second-hand smoker myself, but people who embrace the bad habit have as much right to abuse themselves in public as the next guy.
Sometimes you want to go where everybody shares your vice. There are plenty of non-smoking establishments for the health-conscious. Let's at least keep an open option for the poor downtrodden smokers, eh?
I don't mind if people smoke outside at a restaurant, such as on a patio. But I wouldn't mind a ban on smokeing inside if the establishment is primarily an eatery. (Say, great than 60% of is revenue from food sales).
But a government ban on smoking in bars: I'm against that. Even non-smokers frequently sneak smokes when getting hammered. Besides, bars are free to ban smoking on their own, if they want to. Moreover, this is Texas. I thought "y'all" were small-government folks who didn't want the goverment telling you what you can and can't do? Or is that mantra only selectively carted out, like so many cowboy hats during rodeo season?