Outdoor smoking may be banned in West Hollywood

West Hollywood is moving toward banning outdoor smoking and has directed city staff members to draft an ordinance that would prohibit such activity in outdoor areas of dining establishments. But business owners and those from West Hollywood's bustling nightclub industry say the regulation would hurt the local economy.

Read more in the WeHo News:

Following in the region’s wake, Mayor Abbe Land, the co-executive director of the Saban Free Clinic and a long-time health advocate, joined with constitutional law professor Mayor Pro Tem John Heilman in a resolution to direct the city attorney to draft a ban on smoking in the city’s dining and clubbing outdoor smoking areas that “will create a more enjoyable atmosphere to the public.”

Opposition to the measure came primarily from an admittedly “upset” council member John Duran, a criminal defense attorney, who pulled the item from the consent calendar for discussion and a vote. He called the proposed prohibition “antithetical to what we are as a city,” and dangerous to the city’s economy.

Comments

[Armando]

The City of West Hollywood is not the only City in the process of banning smoking, the City of Los Angeles is also in the midst of passing a similar ordinance proposed by Councilman Tom LaBonge.

[Roger Pariseau]

Would someone please provide us with discrete, empirical, duplicated and peer reviewed science concerning secondhand smoke? There is such proof for diesel fumes (particularly those from rot-gut diesel burning ships), radon, arsenic in our water (!), and other sources but none for secondhand smoke. Is all this a governmental distraction from the true causes of lung cancers? A Big Oil Protection Measure? Our government behaved similarly before......

[Em]

Hey council member John Duran, the West Hollywood ban on smoking will NOT be a danr to the city's businesses. This doesn't pick & choose which establishments can have outside smoking and which can't. This is an across the board ban.

This argument is always used by smokers and those who oppose smoking bans. Since all business must abide, there is no favoritism. People will still go out to eat, go clubbing, etc., they just won't be able to smoke in these locales and my lungs will be grateful.

Maybe if you look at the glass as being half full, you may gain more patrons, those who do want to go out but don't want to breathe in someone elses smoke.

[o.O]

So the way things are going, smoking weed outside will be fine, but tobacco is apparently the devil. That doesn't make ANY sense at all. People are still going to be smoking something, whether it be marijuana or tobacco. Seems like the only way to get away from the liberals nowadays is to just off yourself. I think we need to wake up and stop supporting ideas from local politicians who have nothing better to do than twiddle their thumbs while trying to get an uproar out of the community. This is ridiculous.

[Barada]

I don't need scientific evidence to prove that second hand smoke stinks. I think I have a right to enjoy a meal outside and to actually smell my food and not someone's Camels.
Right on West Hollywood! I wish my city would do the same.

[John]

Abbe and John are two parts of the same bug - silk worm and butterfly.

How much better it would be were they to address the issues of the homeless scattered across west hollywood or perhaps something truly radical like doing something about the long train of empty storefronts, or maybe the unbearable traffic.

But what we get is the same old worm and moth - addressing their lefty-light political careers and not the city's problems - and morphing into each other back and forth along the way.

[Jess]

What happened to freedom, and choice? Why not make Alcohol illegal, it's far more dangerous. I'd rather sit next to a smoker and take my chances, then sit next to a belligerent drunk, or drive on the road with an intoxicated driver.

This is a dangerous precedent. When we give government the power to enforce opinion.

What shall we marginalize next? How about Alcohol, Gay Marriage, Any single religion (or religion in general), Tattoo's, Red Meat, Cell Phone Use, Internal Combustion Engines, or heck, ever Hairspary. All of these I can guarantee are offense to a sizable group of people, and even dangerous to/for others.

I find this quite contradictory for a city which prides it's self on gay right's, and tolerance, yet is now choosing to marginalize a section of it's own populous (smokers).

In reply to the Em's comment above, about your lungs being "grateful":
Smoking is already (and most notably justifiably) illegal indoors, where smoke in a confined area has an impact on occupants. However, how would this save your lungs outside, when we live in an area overrun by automobiles which are constantly emitting carbon monoxide? Or should we ban those too, since CO is also the dangerous element in second hand smoke? You are at much greater risk, in orders of magnitude from "smog" emissions than the second hand smoke. (Search for carbon monoxide/smog on wikipedia, or google if you don't believe me)

Can we not embrace the few personal freedom's we have left?

[sandy pawliger]

Los Angeles is not going to ban smoking citywide, like West Hollywood seems to be proposing - read the article. If LA goes forward and Weho goes with citywide, West hollywood will suffer badly.

[Dialla]

Ok, I get it, if you smoke you should just stay out of West Hollywood.

I don't think that is going to happen. This is one of these nanny laws that cause riots etc..

Next time Hell's Angels are on the street smoking cigars and cigarettes lets send out our dear mayor to enforce this ordinance.

[Mychal]

Banning smoking in certain areas is not going to solve any problems. Why not ban smoking?

[PB&J]

Will the smoking ban effect business? It might... I used to patron the shops and eateries in Santa Monica every week, but when smoking was banned, I stopped going, since it was too complicated and inconvenient to find a 'safe' smoking place within the law (which is 20 feet from any public doorway or window-this pretty much means on the yellow lines n the road, though it is illegal to stand there- The smoking fine in Santa Monica is $300)

There is such a thing as courtesy and common sense... If you're near children, or elbow to elbow with someone, there's no problem with moving away a bit. However, not being allowed to excuse yourself for a smoke just outside the door-or, rather, having to walk a half mile to find a 'safe' place, like a drug criminal- is extremely inconvenient and maddening. It truly feels as though smokers are being persecuted-Not welcome anywhere.

Its true that there is no scientific evidence that suggests second hand smoke causes cancers (studies have show there is no correlation between the two)and more damage comes from breathing our lovely smog each day. I understand smoke stinks-Even I can smell it on someone else, and I smoke!! But banning smoking in entire cities is simply absurd.

Why not ban babies in certain establishments? They stink and they're often loud. I'm bothered by them...What about those little yappy dogs people carry around everywhere? Animals should definitely be banned, especially in eateries and bookstores. They're unsanitary, smelly and incessantly loud (not to mention allergies).

[contraryjim]

Is freedom of association to be banned in West Hollywood? Why shouldn't restaurants, privately owned, be operated for the convenience of it's patrons, rather than the nanny bunch.

[Rose Fogarty]

Once again LA crying about something that's gonna bite them right back in the butt. And I don't mean cigarette butt. You go ahead and ban all the smoking you want, make california "Smoke Free". Then who will pay all those extra taxes that are compiled on a pack of cigarettes?? Why the good people of LA will!! They would rather pay the extra taxes to make up for the sales of cigarettes then walk by someone who is smoking outside. And they also like to sit in traffic for 2 hours on a daily commute sucking on all the exhaust fumes. Go ahead ban smoking and you pay all the extra taxes.. Way to go LA...

[Ed]

It's funny how some people think that moving slightly away from a line of people to smoke is somehow "being polite" when the people in line can still smell the damn smoke.

And o.O, nothing was said about banning smoking tobacco outside only, it's about banning ALL outdoor smoking, so I would think that would include tobacco, pot, cloves, or anything else that think to burn in a roll of paper and inhale its smoke.

[Norman Silver]

If this is pased into law how does the city plan to enforce this law? There are much larger priorities in the law enforcement spectrum.

[Sal]

Cars have killed many people in West Hollywood, I think the council should stand up to these maniacs and ban auto traffic in our city.

[BaDaBing]

THE KOOKS OF CALIFORNIA ARE ON THE WAR PATH AGAIN. CAN ANYONE IMAGINE FARGO OR CHICAGO OR MIAMI PROHIBITING SMOKING TABACCO OUTDOORS. NO WONDER CALIFORNIA HAS BECOME A GHETTO OF THE MEDDLESOME AND BRAIN IMPAIRED!

[WehoQueen]

Let's presume secondhand smoke is actually good for people: I still don't like it. I'm a taxpayer, and I have a right to use outside sidewalk cafes that restaurants rent that sidewalk space from the public city. Why can't I, as a taxpayer, use that space without being assaulted by second hand smoke, whether good or bad for me? John Duran is an enabler of alcoholics, drug addicts, and drug smoking addicts.

[Lopez]

So why can't a taxpaying smoker smoke outside? A blanket smoking ban is selfish and unfair. The health argument is ridiculous and dishonest. There is no evidence to support that smelling a cigarette or cigar will kill you.

What a bunch of whiney fascists.

Freedom of choice already exists for non-smokers, they are well-accommadated by existing law. Now they want to take freedom of choice away from those who enjoy a smoke at the end of a long work week with friends? Because they find the smell unpleasan? Really? I guess the world should revolve around your preferences-du-jour?
Simply unbelievable. Thank God John Duran has a pair.

[Clois Rogers]

Hey WehoQueen...let's pretend, instead, that second-hand smoke is indeed dangerous, OUTDOORS. Because that is the level of hysteria that you delicate flowers will have to maintain in order to legitimize your reprehensible position.

Stripping citizens of their rights because YOU don't personally engage in the same activity is the same thinking that has prevented gay marriage. Shame on your self-centered and thoughtless persecution.

[shay]

Her we go again..I love reading all the ANTI'S rant about how businesses will do just fine with a smoking ban. Have you seen all the store fronts on Melrose closed? The service industry is already hurting because of smoking bans. Have you been to Chicago? There are more empty bars than the eye can see all over the city. And in WeHo, who will compensate all the restaurants that built outdoor patios with their own $$$ so they can keep their establishments open during these hard times? ANTI'S always say they will go out again now that there are no smokers around. But then you look around and see empty bars where there used to be a mixed clientele. You have no idea how hard it is already in L.A. and WeHo to get a job in a bar or restaurant. Now it will be next to impossible and the hoards of people leaving California will continue to grow!

[Firebugmusic]

I would like to echo the sentiments of Shay. I'm from Chicago (originally) and many of the places that I used to frequent when going home for a visit are now indeed CLOSED. Now NO ONE goes to these private businesses (note: private businesses are not paid for by the “public”), who have lost all of their hard earned investments as a result of being FORCED into serving a clientele that many do not wish to serve in the first place. The Right to Assemble means what it means, and if anyone here doesn't get that message, we're really in trouble.

..and yes, there are tons of empty storefronts all over L.A.. Do we want bustling W.Hollywood to become the same? I think not.

The claims about ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) have been so overblown that they managed to distort the very definition of science itself. If you don’t believe me, read Christopher Snowdon’s “Velvet Glove, Iron Fist”. He lists and explains all of the studies on ETS that have ever been conducted. One such major study that was conducted by Enstrom and Kabat (UCLA) followed spouses of smokers for over 3 decades and found NO correlation between lung cancer and ETS. So, if 35 years of LIVING with a smoker doesn’t kill you, how is sitting OUTSIDE next to a smoker going to kill you? Get the facts, not the hyperbolic propaganda that's put forth by ASH, RWJF, ACS, and Tobacco Free Kids.

If you are annoyed by smokers, then don’t patronize the same places as smokers. It’s that simple. It’s called freedom of choice. If you anti smokers keep pushing us, maybe we’ll just have to take it inside again and regain something that has been lost in this country: private property rights. No go open up your own restaurant (or bar) and declare it non-smoking. It’s ok, you can do that in a free society. Now leave the rest of us, who would like to congregate in peace, alone.

Smokers: We really need to vote these politicians out of office.
Smokersclub-California

[jredheadgirl]

1) The government shall NOT take Private property for public use without DUE COMPENSATION.

2) Smokers contribute more in taxes than they take out. We pay for things like roads, parks, gov services, and OTHER people's children's health insurance (SCHIP).

3) We have the Right to Assemble. If you don't like smoke, don't patronize the same places as smokers. Leave us alone.

4) We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Direct Democracy of mob rule. That means that the majority may NOT vote away the rights of ANY minority.

5) Non-smokers have the right to open up their own establishments.

6) To learn about all the studies of Passive smoking ever conducted, read Christopher Snowdon’s “ Velvet Glove, Iron Fist:
A History of Anti-Smoking", he has compiled a full, annotated list of every passive smoking study ever conducted.

As expected, of course, the majority of Studies come up with either Null (no association either way) or Negative (passive smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer).

7) What we have here is bigotry and hatred; business as usual for the pharmaceutical companies, their "non-profit", "foundation" partners in social denormalisation like RWJF, Tobacco Free Kids, ASH (a hate group that promotes a book that speaks of poisoning smokers). Somebody's making a lot of money off of these bans & it's not the bar or restaurant owners with smoking customers.

[Arnold McMunn]

John Duran is right to be upset.
This isn't about involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke in public places.
These are known establishments where the specific locations can be counted on to cater to smokers.

This is the intent to ban VOLUNTARY EXPOSURE by TAX-PAYING Smokers to smoking at a smoking-permitted bar or restaurant and a Clear violation of Our Right as Smokers to Peaceable Assembly, as long as the establishment in question permits smoking.

This idea that smoking-permitted bars and restaurants are 'a public place for non-smoking families and The Children' is total garbage. Does anyone really expect to enter a smoking-permitted area and Not be exposed to second-hand smoke?
Does anybody here REALLY expect to enter a Strip Club and Not be exposed to Strippers? Stripping in a public place is also against the law, but DANG!
A Strip Club IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE, is it?

For that matter, neither is any bar or restaurant because bars and restaurants charge for their services. You can't just walk in to a bar or restaurant and stand there like as if you are standing in a general public place. You have to pay the piper because these are Not Public Places. If the smoking bars or restaurants were smart, they would charge the antismokers a two pack minimum with an exemption to smoking patrons, and why not? Charging a two-drink minimum to separate the deadbeats from the paying patrons is perfectly legal. So is charging non-participating non-members extra. But Our Government currently DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF TAX-PAYING SMOKERS and instead prefers to support TAX-FREE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, so we end up in opposite biased contempt by Our Representatives.

John Duran is right to be upset.

For any antismokers reading this, please, do not run into my smoking bar or restaurant begging for 'clean fresh air'.
Just go back outside. Go to Denny's or to any of the hundreds of smoke-free bars and restaurants serving L.A.
Go to the L.A. Live! district instead. The Entire District is strictly smoke-free.
Isn't that a big enough seat for you?

[Rosie]

This is just another example of the nanny state government wanting to protect us from ourselves.

I imagine there are much more important things the City officials could be working on besides this, but why do the hard stuff when getting the "easy" things off the list makes the day go by more quickly?

I really hate cigarette smoke, but enjoy smoking sometimes when I'm out at a club and drinking. I think as long as smoking indoors is banned, then at least let people have a smoke outside.