Burnt Orange Report

A Tale of Two Ciggies

By Jim Dallas

Houston and Austin are dealing with the problems of second-hand smoke in public places in slightly different ways.

The Houston city council passed a smoking ban in restaraunts - but not in bars or in outdoor areas - on Wednesday. The Houston Chronicle writes:

Under the ordinance, which goes into effect Sept. 9, the city will continue to allow smoking in bar areas within restaurants, in outdoor dining areas and in free-standing bars. Mayor Bill White proposed the measure as a compromise between the economic interests of restaurant and bar owners and anti-smoking advocates who pushed to ban smoking in all public indoor spaces.

The ordinance also bans smoking in covered bus shelters and in taxis that are not designated as smoking vehicles.

Under the previous ordinance, all public buildings could have designated indoor smoking areas, as long as they were clearly marked and properly ventilated.

"Today council acted decisively to make more of Houston smoke-free," White said after the 9-4 vote. "This is Texas, where we do balance freedoms."

Meanwhile, in Austin, which may or may not be part of Texas (it depends on what the meaning of "is" is), and where the freedom-balancing scales apparently are broken, the people will get to vote on the following ballot proposition on May 7:

"An ordinance repealing Austin's current ordinance relating to smoking in public places and replacing it with a new ordinance that maintains the current prohibition against smoking in most public places, including workplaces, and expands the prohibition against smoking to apply to all bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and billiard parlors, except for restaurants with restricted permits that are renewable through September 1, 2012."

The Austin Chronicle writes:

Battle lines are now in place over the upcoming public vote on a new Austin ordinance that aims to ban smoking in nearly all public places, including bars, music venues, and bowling alleys. As anticipated, City Council voted on Thursday to place the newly proposed ordinance language on the May 7 ballot, for the voters to decide whether to strengthen the less-restrictive anti-smoking ordinance that went into effect in June of 2004. The city clerk had certified on Monday that Onward Austin, the group promoting the ordinance, had gathered enough petition signatures – more than 36,000, representing 10% of Austin's electorate – supporting a strict, new ordinance to force city action. On Tuesday, local bar and club owners, fearing a loss of business, filed a federal lawsuit against the city in hopes of heading off the ordinance, and continue to organize an opposition campaign. At the same time, anti-smoking forces say they are adding business owners and other high-profile supporters to their ranks.

Which solution to this Dreaded Cloud of Tobacco Smoke is better? Depends on who you ask.

The Daily Cougar, the student paper at UH ran a story today on student reactions to the Houston ban, which has been generally positive (although others would opt for a complete ban like in Austin). Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, however, lambasted the Houston plan as weak policy, and it looks like they'll try to push for total abolition in Houston. Will it succeed? I don't know, but considering (1) that the City Council rejected an amendment that would ban smoking in all public places by a whopping 10-3 vote, and (2) that it's not like air pollution is exactly a novel concept to Houstonians, I somehow doubt we'll see a total ban anytime soon.

Ironically, though, half-way measures create interesting incentives for some owners. The AusChron tells us the story of one local businessman:

At least one business owner has broken ranks with his colleagues. Reed Clemmons, owner of the Bitter End, Reed's Supper Club, and Mezzaluna, spoke Thursday in favor of the complete ban. He said the current ordinance puts his bar-restaurants, each ineligible for a smoking permit, at an unfair disadvantage against smoking bars, and he blames the cost-prohibitive ventilation systems required to allow smoking in bar-restaurants. "My happy hours are down 40% since the current ordinance took effect," Clemmons said. "The best-case scenario would be to let bar owners decide whether to allow smoking or not. But in reality, I know that's never going to happen in Austin again. … I have to fight for my business interests." Clemmons considers the proposed complete ban as effectively leveling the playing field among all kinds of bar venues.

Indeed, there's at least ample evidence that a laissez-faire policy works. The Daily Cougar story, for example, tells the story of Ziggy's Healthy Grill, in Houston, which banned smoking on its own initiative. And good for them.

(Keep Austin Free has some statistics of questionable veracity further backing up the claim that the free market solves; for example, they claim that over 99 percent of Austin businesses are smoke-free).

To be sure, smoking is a nasty dirty habit that I do not encourage, and as someone with family members who have impaired lung function I happen to strongly encourage those around me not to smoke, and I know for sure that we're not going to patronize businesses that have smokey, dirty atmospheres.

But Austin and Houston are hardly po-dunk places where there's only one diner, and quite frankly I am very skeptical of anyone who insists that individuals oughtn't be free to choose. On strictly pragmatic grounds, though, I see why the Houston ordinance might make sense. It is completely beyond me why such a large percentage of Austinites would vote for a complete smoking ban, though.

Then again, this is just the sort of bizarre politics that makes Austin... Austin. And as a proud owner of a "Keep Austin Weird" t-shirt, I have to heartily endorse an "aye" vote on the smoking proposition.

As an aside, Galveston and Kemah are now considering smoking bans, according to the Galveston County Daily News. The economic powers that be will probably fight any ban that's stricter than Houston's, for obvious reasons. This presents a question of agency: is it best for this to be dealt with on a municipal level? When big cities pass strict ordinances, small cities are likely to engage in "race to the bottom" behavior, with the upshot being small cities are in fact the places where there is not sufficient diversity in accomodations to allow for perfect laissez-faire competition. Perhaps this should be dealt with on a state-wide basis instead.