A city council subcommittee is considering expanding the city's current smoking ban from restaurants and workplaces to bars, billiard halls and within 15 feet of entrances to publicly accessible villages, according to the DMN. Our neighborhoods' councilmen, Sheffie Kadane and Angela Hunt, have different perspectives on the proposal, according to the News story and more comments on its blog.
I have to admit that when the city council first decided to restrict smoking in restaurants and other public places a few years ago, I had my doubts: It seemed like a draconian measure, and it seemed likely to drive business out of Dallas. Today, though, I haven't seen a single study indicating that significant business was lost to the more smoking-friendly suburbs, and the air in most places I go these days is cleaner and clearer.
And that was never obvious to me than the other night, when a friend and I stopped by a Mesquite sports bar. The bar itself was great, lots of TVs, but the place was filled with smoke. I didn't even notice it until I arrived home, when my clothes literally stunk after absorbing the smoke, much as I suppose my lungs did, too.
I don't have anything against smokers, but I've come to think that smoking in any public place is a health issue for those who don't smoke — and there are far more nonsmokers than smokers these days. I'll need to know more about the smoking ban being considered before making a definitive call, but I can tell you I'm more in favor of limits today than I was before the city initiated the first ban.
The Wine Curmudgeon 
I understand that smokers tend to feel discriminated against. After all, it would seem that we are all entitled to our bad habits. Smoking, however, is a particularly communal offense. Even outdoors, the smoke and acrid odor are essentially impossible to contain to the smoker’s immediate area. Without such controls and given the inherently unhealthy attributes of smoking, any ban on this practice in public places seems appropriate to me.
I’m not a smoker and (the occasional cigar excepted), never have been. But I’m quite opposed to smoking bans. It’s none of the government’s damned business. Liberty matters — in ways both small and big.
Scurvy, your point is a good one, and one I struggle with on this issue. I don’t want the government legislating every aspect of our lives, yet Norm’s point is well-taken, too: A smoker’s impact is felt by people well beyond the smoker’s normal circle of influence, and it’s not always possible — if people can smoke wherever they want — to escape that influence, even if you want to.
We already have a smoking ordance. This ordance is mainly about expanding the current law to include bars, cigar bars and billard halls. Hardly public places where you have to go. Granted there are probably no cigar bars and billard halls where smoking doesn’t occour, but there are non-smoking bars. I was there yesterday and it appears that this is a done deal as the committee is stacked with anti-smoking zealots. I also object to holding the property owner liable for not properly enforcing the law.
I’m perfectly happy for the owners of any establishment to impose their own rules about whether smoking, or any other bad habit, is permitted at their establishment. (I always enjoy going to clubs that have the immensely civilized rule forbidding the use of cell phones in the clubhouse, for that matter. I’d rather be at the next table to a Pall Mall smoker than some vacuous 20-year-old yammering into her phone.) Similarly, I’m just fine with the State of Texas prohibiting smoking in a state courthouse, for example, or a city banning smoking in a city park. But for a city to tell the owners of a bar that the patrons of the bar can’t smoke there is much too nanny-state for my taste.
Just for the record, I took particular delight in voting for McCain in the Texas primary as a way of voting against Huckabee, in part because of Huck’s support for a national smoking ban. Like Old Bull Lee in On the Road (based on William S. Burroughs, of course), I have a “sentimental streak” for the America of 1910 because:
“you could get morphine in a drugstore without prescription and Chinese smoked opium in their evening windows and the country was wild and brawling and free, with abundance and any kind of freedom for everyone.”
I am sympathetic to the individual freedoms concerns, I just fail to see how they apply here. If the government wanted to ban smoking in your home or car, you’d have a point. But that isn’t what we have here. Public places like bars, restaurants, even pool halls, are already controlled by a variety of reasonable regulations to protect general public safety. This ban would be no different.
As I alluded to in my original comment, we all have our bad habits. However, my overeating at the table next to you doesn’t make you fat, just me. If someone next to me at the bar is drinking too much, I’m not affected unless they drink to the point that they are unruly or unsafe driving to the next bar. At that point only, the point where others are put at risk, the laws kick in. With smoking, the smell and the health issues associated with second hand smoke start as soon as you light up. If you want to argue personal liberties for smoking, then you need to devise a way to keep smoking a purely personal experience. Good luck with that.
In my model, there would be — in response to market demand — smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants, smoking bars and non-smoking bars, &c. You and your sensitive nose would have places to go.
By the way, the 20-year-old yammering into her cell phone at the next table does raise my blood pressure. Want to help me get the government to regulate her? No, I didn’t think so.
Just one more thing to help you grasp the freedom concern. As bar owners understand very well, people like to smoke and drink at the same time. If they can’t smoke at a bar, they won’t stay there and drink as long. Can you understand the bar owner’s desire to have the freedom to set the rules at her establishment? (Oh, but that’s just economic liberty. Who cares, right?)
I don’t know that I like it any more than you, but I say let the cell phone user talk. Freedom of speech is understood in most circles to be clearly protected, up to the point that speech disturbs the peace, in which case it is just as clearly limited by the law. In neither case do I see real health issues for anyone. It appears that your ears are a lot more sensitive than my nose.
Economic liberty? Does that include rolling back restaurant health standards, fire-resistive provisions, emergency exiting requirements and building structural standards? I can say authoritatively that all those things cost a significant amount of money. Are these safety and health-centered provisions also an encroachment on the bar owner’s economic liberty?
At least it appears that we can agree that pointless sarcasm is a freedom any of us can enjoy without limits.
Norm,
Of course, I don’t recommend rolling back restaurant health standards. You see, as a potential restaurant customer, I can’t determine how healthy the kitchen is. That is the sort of thing that it makes sense for the government to regulate, because the costs to the consumer of trying to make those determinations are excessive. Same analysis for your other examples. I can’t tell much of anything about a building’s structural quality just by looking at it. You obviously would have a much better understanding of what you were looking at, but still probably wouldn’t get all the information you’d like from a cursory visual inspection.
That’s completely different from the burden I would place on you, which is to pick up the phone and call a restaurant that you’re thinking of trying for the first time, to find out whether they permit smoking. If they do, you don’t have to go there. You could get all the information you needed, with minimal effort. No need to regulate this.
We can certainly agree that pointless sarcasm is a delightful freedom. The internet would be much less entertaining without it. 🙂
Scurvy,
I should have been reading earlier today because you beat me to my point. I am a nonsmoker and, thanks to the smoking bans, have realized that I enjoy smoke-free establishments much more than I ever thought I would. However, I am no more in favor of imposing my smoking preferences on a bar or restaurant owner than I am in regulating the cuisine or drinks they serve.
Grilled chicken, steamed broccoli, and a glass of water is much healthier for patrons than the battered and deep fried version of bird with a side of golden, crispy fried okra (washed down with tooth-rotting sweet tea), but I don’t think anyone would propose regulation of menus. If I didn’t mind clogging my arteries, I chose to go to the deary departed Brother’s Fried Chicken. If I felt like being healthier, I went elsewhere. But it was a choice I made, and my waistline solely reflected my personal choices, for which I and I alone take personal responsibility. I think the smoking issue is a reflection of our reluctance to take personal responsiblity as much as it is about personal freedom.
This sort of discourse is what I blog for. Thanks.
But at the risk of being redundant, none of your comments address the fundamental issue that I think separates smoking from the other examples used by us all. Namely, what the smoker does impacts those around them, whether those around them want it to or not. It is not strictly about personal choices when practiced in public.
My example of rolling back restaurant health and life safety standards was to suggest the question about whether it would make sense to do so as long as you told people first. A dual system of healthy and safe vs unhealthy and unsafe restaurants to choose from. Make them put it on the sign. So you entered the unhealthy/unsafe one at your own risk and the restaurant owner exercised his personal liberties to keep the money and take his chances. Does that make any sense to anyone? It certainly doesn’t make sense to me and I fail to see the difference in providing the same type of choices with smoking. It appears they agree with me in Dublin, for what that’s worth.
True confession time. Not only am I not a smoker, I think it’s an unhealthy, addictive, destructive practice that belongs in our society’s past, like witch trials and bleeding the sick. My parents’ generation didn’t know better, but we certainly do. Despite that knowledge, I’m shocked at the number of young people I see who have taken it up, setting themselves up for problems later in life. It’s a burden on our health and, as such, also a burden on our economy. I speak up against it whenever I get the chance, as I have today.
The question, really, is where the burden should lie. Some people want to smoke; some people not only don’t want to smoke but, for perfectly valid reasons, want to avoid second-half smoke like the plague. I get that.
The question is whether the latter, who now appear to be in the majority, get to enforce their view on everybody. If you don’t want to go to a place where people are smoking, don’t go there. It’s just that simple. When was the last time somebody hogtied you and hauled you off to a place where people are smoking?
More plausibly — and this time I’m actually asking — how often is it that you want to go someplace but don’t because there would be people smoking there? And I’m asking given the current status of the balance between the interests of smokers and non-smokers.
I’m delighted that I have not smoked more than a few packs of cigarettes and some cigars, all quite some time ago. I’m especially happy that my wife stopped smoking several years ago, and that neither of my teenaged kids appears to have any desire to smoke. I commend you for speaking up against it. But what you have done today is something very significantly different, in my view: you have advocated wielding the awesome power of government, with its authority to seize property and even person, to impose the views you hold. That may fly in Dublin, and it may even fly in Dallas — but it should fly nowhere.
With a clear distinction between smoking and non-smoking establishments, patrons can make the choice of whether to engage in the activity of inhaling second hand smoke or whether to avoid it. Don’t like the smokey smell of the Dubliner? Head on over to Trinity Hall. Don’t want to be around tobacco at all? Don’t go into Up In Smoke.
As I mentioned before, I am growing to like the smoke-free environment, and proprietors may do well to make their establishments smoke-free (I would say all smokers should cease their habit, but cigarettes are just too profitable a product for governments…another conversation for another day). I just prefer that government play as small a role in regulating business as possible (not intented to be a segue into banking/bailout talk!). With the hazards of smoking well known, we can make informed choices about where we go. If I get on the road at 2:00 a.m., I realize that I will probably be sharing the streets with a higher concentration of drunk drivers than I would at 2:00 p.m. People shouldn’t drive drunk, it’s illegal (as opposed to smoking, which is legal), and it creates hazards to those who had no part in it. But if I make the choice to be on the road at that hour, that’s the environment I will have to exist in.
To answer your question, ScurvyOaks, I have had to give up on our own local Cock and Bull for this very reason. Too bad. The food has had a good reputation and I’ve enjoyed the times I’ve gone, except for the raunchy smell. I also used to like listening to the Blue’s live, especially Hash Brown when he played the Lakewood Bar and Grill, but no more. Just not worth it.
I’m as much for small government as any of my fellow red state’ers. However, when we live in close proximity to one another, as we do in the city, there are all kinds of laws in place setting the ground rules for living together and trying to protect us from one another. Some of those laws flat-out prohibit activities that are ok when practiced in solitude, but are anti-social, irresponsible or down right dangerous in a city with hundreds of thousands of people nearby. Discharging firearms for any reason comes to mind. Perhaps driving 75 mph on Abrams is another. I’m sure we can all think of other, perhaps better examples. That’s my feelings in a nutshell. You want to smoke even though it’s bad for you and those around you, that’s your choice. Just keep it at home, please.
I’m signing off for the evening, fellas. Have a good one. The last word is all yours.
It’s so nice to see a discussion on the blog that doesn’t involve something I wrote. Thanks, gentlemen.
Don’t forget — you’ll need to move this discussion to the new blog site on Monday, when we turn this site off. Any questions, let me know.
However did we make it 16 comments without a single mention of Cesar Chavez or DISD?!?!?!
It’s been a pleasure, gentlemen. By the way, Norm, congrats on the Parks Estate! That’s a really important, wonderful step for the neighborhood, and I was worried that it would never be pulled off.
Someone point me to this blog since my establishment was mentioned so I felt compelled to put in my two cents. As the owner of C&B and a fellow non-smoker, I am very bothered by the smoking ban from many perspectives.
1. Freedom of choice. I understand the ban in public building that people have to go such as schools and office buildings. C&B is not a place that everyone has to go. You have the choice. I am glad that Norman enjoyed our place and I am sorry that he chooses not to come because of the smoke. How far will these bans go? Take the argument that smoking hurts people around them so does many other things..
a. Driving. I don’t see us banning people from driving SUVs or banning people from driving more than 100 miles a month because it increases bio-carbon footprint and will eventually kill all of us. Dallas is one of the most polluted cities in the world and I have to live here. I have to breath this air everyday.
b. Fast food. People eat fast food everyday and it is killing us. The argument is that it is not harming people that are not eating it. Really? California just ban selling of cigarettes in pharmacies citing bad influence to sick people buying medication. Popularity of fast food is driving mom and pop business out and if that’s the only thing available, that’s why people will eat. Living in one of the fattest places in America, you cannot argue that fast food places are not killing people. Don’t see no ban on fast food places.
c. Building houses. We are clearing out land everyday and lack of vegetation is contributing to global warming. Portland passed city ordinance to restrict urban sprawl. Why isn’t such measures being approved here?
Where do we draw the line? I was cited in Zurich because I was doing laundry on Sunday – banned for religious reasons. I was cited for watching TV after 10 PM because it was interfering other people sleeping. I was cited for feeding birds because it was contributing to wild pigeon population. This list can go on and on.. As a non-smoker, I think the smoking ban is going too far. Lastly, from an immigrant’s perspective, the ban is just so un-American.
2. Economics. For me, it is a business decision since over 90% of my patrons smoke and you know what, if the smoking ban passes, I will probably have to close down the bar. In this economy, my business is already down 30%. I cannot take another hit. What Norman does not understand is that most bar are already non-smoking because of the restaurant smoking ban. The new smoking ban will only hurt the small independents that will be forced to close. Good number of my customers will either stay home or go to Richardson, Garland, or Plano when the ban passes. I think we add color to the neighborhood that makes Lakewood so great. It is going to be very unfortunate to have any independent establishments close. It is too bad that the city does not care. The only thing the ban will do is close down the small independent bars that Norman is hoping to enjoy when the ban passes.
3. Judging. People makes choices all the time that we do not like or understand. I do not smoke but I don’t think smokers are bad people even thought I cannot understand why anyone would start such habit on their own. My dad was in the war when China became communist and my dad was paid with cigarettes. I cannot fault him completely for the addiction. So, do I appreciate the fact that he has to stand out in the cold everywhere he goes to smoke because of this habit that’s legal in America? No. Smoking went from cool to bad and people that smoke are now judged as second class citizens. I do not agree with that.
Anyways, I rant. I am very passionate about this issue and would be happy to discuss this with anyone at C&B, if you can stand the smoke.
Well put, Shawn. Very interesting to hear the opinion of a bar owner who really has something at stake. I just wish someone could grab the City Council by the shoulders, give them a good shake, and ask “Banning smoking in bars? Are you serious? In bars?”
While I understand that being around smoke or smokers is a choice, I also understand that a city needs to protect it’s citizens for the greater good. You can bring up fast food, economics, freedom of choice and all that; but it’s just excuses and not valid reasons. When I smoked that was my choice to smoke, it wasn’t the choice of the people around me for my smoke to pollute their lungs and bodies, when I was outdoors, or at a restaurant, bars etc…. I could go into the whole secondhand smoke thing but I digress.
Smoking will get banned in Dallas, just as it has in New York City, Los Angeles, and other major cites. You can’t find one club, bar, or restaurant that allows smoking in NYC or LA. As a result bar, club and restaurant owners have made concessions for the smokers by creating outdoor areas where smoking is allowed. I always find it amazing to me that Dallas still allows smoking, when the rest of the modern world doesn’t.
I’ll applaud the day that Dallas finally bans smoking and stops believing in the “noble lie” that big tobacco has created. Will it be hard to have a whole city “quit” smoking? Sure. But like real people who quit, you’ll ask yourself why Dallas allowed smoking in the first place.
Jeff, I can protect myself just fine. I don’t need your paternalism; indeed, I hotly resent it.
WOW, Even better over 20 comments with no mention of Urban Taco. I agree with most of the statements about banning smoking. I will not go to restaurants or bars that allow it including the B&C. I am usually out to a restaurant or a bar two or three times a week. That’s my choice.
I don’t understand how anybody can stay in or grow a business catering to a small minority of patrons who assist on smoking. Restaurants and bar that allow smoking is in fact encouraging people to smoke by giving the smoker a wink and nod that it is OK to smoke by providing ash trays plus other smoker comfort items.
So don’t tell me it’s freedom of choice.