L.A. council to consider banning smoking in outdoor dining areas

A proposed ban on smoking in Los Angeles’ outdoor dining areas is back before the City Council after months of deliberation.

Introduced in mid-2008 by Councilmen Greig Smith and Dennis Zine, the ordinance drafted by the city attorney’s office would bar customers from lighting up within a 10-foot radius of outdoor seating areas at restaurants and food courts. Under the current draft, smoking would also be prohibited within a 40-foot radius of mobile food trucks and refreshment kiosks.

The rules would exempt bars, nightclubs for the 18-and-older crowd, and venues closed to the public for private events. If the City Council approves the ban, there would be a six-month public education period before the rules are enforced.

Most unclear, however, is who would enforce the rule. Councilman Tom LaBonge, chairman of the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee, said members would discuss those details, as well as the possible penalties for violations during an 8:30 a.m. committee hearing Tuesday at City Hall.

-- Maeve Reston at L.A. City Hall

Comments

[Sean]

"a 40-MILE radius of mobile food trucks and refreshment kiosks."? 40 Miles?? Doesn't that seem a little excessive to not be able to smoke within 40 miles of a food truck?

[km]

I think Reston intended to write "a 40-FOOT radius of mobile food trucks and refreshment kiosks." Correction?

[Zach]

I would certainly enjoy, as I smoke my cigarette, watching, as the cop, or whoever they choose to enforce such a ridiculous rule, busts out his tape measure and tickets me. It's not going to stop anything, save anyone, or help anybody. And this is a great example of a waste of taxpayer dollars. The simple fact of the matter is that rules and laws like these CANNOT BE ENFORCED. Period. So quit wasting time and worry about other more drastic issues, like California's terrible economy.

[Kristin]

"smoking would also be prohibited within a 40-mile radius of mobile food trucks and refreshment kiosks."

???

[Mark]

This is a highly dubious use of the council's time.

I suppose there will have to be court action to define the limit of smoking laws, since politicians seem incapable of restraining themselves.

[Bill Toukan]

"smoking would also be prohibited within a 40-mile radius of mobile food trucks and refreshment kiosks"? That doesn't sound right!

[MichaelB]

"Under the current draft, smoking would also be prohibited within a 40-mile radius of mobile food trucks and refreshment kiosks."

40 miles? Guess that will reduce the likelihood of secondhand smoke.

[Omond]

That's a tough new law. I don't think you can ever be 40 miles from a taco truck in California.

[Greg Samsa]

No smoking within 40 mile radius of food trucks? I think I'm going to be checking Twitter a whole lot more often!

[Matt Reed]

What? Within 40 miles of a mobile food truck? That has to be a typo. If it were county wide that'd mean if there's a truck in San Gabriel I couldn't smoke in Pasadena.

[Mike]

40-mile radius? Are you getting this mixed up with the registered sex offender laws?

[Kevin]

How will I know if I'm within 40 miles of a mobile food truck?

[lindsay]

"within a 40-mile radius of mobile food trucks"

40 miles seems a little harsh, no?

[PT1]

Having to breathe smoke is among the worst things about trying to eat outdoors here. Would all the smokers please just quit or get (an inevitable case of) cancer so we can breathe in peace? Please?

[Farah E]

Why don't they also ban fast food if they are concerned about the health of the public? Don't like the idea of govt nanny states but if they're still going to do it, then do it well!

[Paul]

This is idiotic. There are no health issues related to smoking outdoors. If California politicians need something useful to do, they can come do chores at my house.

[Dick Tripp]

I do not think that smokers realize how offensive the odors given off by their clothing and the fumes of their cigarettes are. While I am concerned about second-hand effects, in terms of dinning out, being next to a person smoking is like being next to someone who has not bathed for several days; Not good!

My wife and I have left restaurants early and not returned because of this problem. While I have no problem with people smoking because they enjoy doing so; even in open air areas, it is offensive to others. We travel extensively in the US and overseas and have decided to opt out of sitting outside when we see smokers or ashtrays on the tables. Even if forget because no one is smoking when we arrive, as soon as the table next to us starts to fill and someone lights up, we always call for the check, although we might otherwise linger on, ordering another round. Possibly, that is the intent of owners fighting the proposal; it offers a mechanism to move people on so they (the owners) can turn a table.

[Carla]

I am a nonsmoker who supports this... and I would have supported it when I WAS a smoker. I believe smokers should be allowed to create legally protected places to gather and smoke, but they shouldn't be surprised or offended when they have to visit smoke-free venues to socialize with their friends.

[Bill]

Please pass this, City Council. What is the point of having outdoor dining at all if one is forced to inhale and smell someone else's cigarette smoke while trying to eat? I'm all for smokers enjoying their cigarettes - just away from my meal.

[Starlight]

No, no, no, please leave us alone! You don't own the air outside. Let us have some place where we can smoke and not be ostracized. We should have a place, too. Enough of this prejudice and witch hunting against smokers. How about going after the boozers for a change?

[James P]

Fer Gawd's sake, won't those idiots on the Council just leave us alone? They got their restaurant ban, and they just can't stop. Don't they have anything better to do?

[KCassidy]

Why is this something that the City Council gets to decide? They don't own the businesses so they shouldn't be making such decisions. Oh yeah, it's the whole "secondhand smoke kills" schtick again. Sure, sitting in an outside patio near a smoker will surely take years off of your life. Sounds totally plausible.

[steve rodriguez]

LA City Council I have a novel idea, get rid of illegal aliens, gangs and graffiti, and don't worry about the petty stuff like smoking!

[Josh Strike]

This isn't about second-hand smoke being dangerous in an outdoor setting; it isn't, once you're more than about two feet away from the source of the smoke. There's absolutely no evidence that it hurts anybody.

This is about people who just don't like smelling it, who think they should be able to go anywhere anytime and never have to be offended by the smell of it. These people cannot simply live and let live; they have to make criminals of people whose behaviors they disapprove of.

I'm a smoker. I've already been pushed outside in the wind, the rain, the cold. I don't care; I'll sit there and enjoy myself rather than inside with all the non-smokers whose petty conversations and self-righteous behavior offends me. Now leave me in peace, with some place to have my drink and my smoke. Do not make it impossible to have physical enjoyment for 15% of the population. They will resent you for it, and their frustration will boil over into other areas. It is not the business of the police or the city to tell me not to smoke OUTSIDE. If you don't like my smoke, please go somewhere away from me, because you have left me nowhere else to move.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Bill wrote, "What is the point of having outdoor dining at all if one is forced to inhale and smell someone else's cigarette smoke while trying to eat?" Er, Bill, the point of many of the outdoor dining areas that have been set up in the last ten years was PRECISELY to allow smoking customers an enjoyable environment after they'd been thrown out to the streets by the antismoking fanatics. . . . . Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"