This report of the "round-table" meeting on Thursday, October 16 is taken from our sister site, CigarCyclopedia.com:

About two dozen advocates on both sides of proposed smoking bans in Los Angeles argued the issue in front of Council member Tom LaBonge at Los Angeles City Hall on Thursday with no specific resolution, but with LaBonge looking for common ground.

At issue were two proposals: a motion by Council member Grieg Smith to ban smoking at all “outdoor dining areas” in the city and a motion by Council member Bernard Parks to essentially ban smoking everywhere in public and in common areas of apartment buildings.

In favor of the proposals was the expected team of about a dozen representatives of various “health advocacy” organizations such as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and others involved in the issue at various levels of activism. A representative for the California Restaurant Association was also present and spoke about the view of the CRA board.

Against the ban proposals were two groups: two representatives of the Koreatown Restaurant Association and eight members of Cigar Rights of America (including this reporter, acting as an advocate in my home city).

LaBonge, council member for the Fourth District and chair of the relevant Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee for this subject, called the meeting after an initial hearing on the Smith proposal on banning smoking in outdoor dining areas to get more input from the business community. No decisions were made and LaBonge acted as moderator for the 75-minute session; no other council members were present, although staff representatives for some council members attended as observers.

Highlights:

>> The meeting was quite tense and there were some pointed comments on both sides. However, while both sides vehemently disagreed with the other, LaBonge kept good order and kept the focus on the issues at hand. Given the passion on both sides, the discussion itself was intense, but not raucous or out of control.

>> Most of the health advocates reiterated the standard litany of complaints about smoking, especially how important it is (to them) to avoid second-hand smoke. One speaker went as far as essentially stating that she didn’t want her daughter to even see anyone smoking. Another noted that she should be able to enjoy outdoor dining at any restaurant she wanted, without the presence of second-hand smoke; the implication was obvious that she had no willingness to concede that users of legal tobacco products had any right to enjoy the same privilege of dining outdoors while enjoying tobacco. A third complained that some smoke from the outdoor area might seep inside and be a bother.

More than one speaker emphasized that the percentage of smokers in Los Angeles is very low (about 14%), intimating that such a small population need not be accommodated. (It is worth noting that in terms of minorities, the percentage of smokers in Los Angeles is larger than the percentage of African-Americans [11.2%] or Asians [10.0%] in the City per the 2000 Census.)

>> Andrew Casana, representing the California Restaurant Association, said that the CRA board had instructed him not to oppose this ban and that the association’s posture has not been to oppose such bans after it had been beaten up by the pro-ban side in the 1990s. He was asked by LaBonge to provide the percentage of restaurants in Los Angeles which have outdoor dining areas now and which do not allow smoking in these areas as a crucial item in helping LaBonge to determine what the actual needs for legislation are in this area. Casana emphasized that in any case, however, restauranteurs would not support having any responsibility for enforcement for any ban which is enacted.

>> The Korean restauranteurs noted that after the indoor smoking ban was adopted in California around 1994, many of their members went ahead and built outdoor patios for their smoking patrons. Their view was that an outdoor dining ban is not needed, since people have a choice of sitting in a non-smoking interior section, or in the outdoor area. Some restaurants with outdoor dining patios have segregated smokers and non-smokers on the patio.

>> The Cigar Rights of America attendees included Executive Vice President Jeff Borysiewicz, who traveled cross-country from Orlando, Florida to attend the meeting; Eliot Suied of Kretek International; Pete Johnson, creator of the Tatuaje and La Riqueza brands, whose company is headquartered in Los Angeles; Michael Dougherty, area sales manager for the J.C. Newman Cigar Co.; Victor Migenes, owner of 2nd Street Cigars & Gallery in Los Angeles; Taz Ahmadi, owner of The V Cut cigar shop in Los Angeles; this reporter, and Victor Franco of Ek & Ek, who provided political counsel.

>> Among the points made by the Cigar Rights group:

We haven’t had much to say since activity concerning anti-smoking activity in Los Angeles since September, but the wait is over.

The only measure which is on the table now is a motion (no. 08-1544) by Council member Greig Smith (seconded by Dennis Zine) that would ban smoking in "outdoor dining areas." There is also a companion Resolution (no. 08-0002-S93) from Council members Wendy Gruel and Jose Huizar to ask the County of Los Angeles and State of California to approve similar legislation.

The matter came before the City’s Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee on September 3 and chair Tom LaBonge (4th District) asked for a meeting to discuss the economic impact of such a measure.

That long-awaited meeting is scheduled for this week, but it is not a public meeting, so please do not ask for the time and place.

Representatives of the anti-smoking crowd will be present, of course and the California Restaurant Association and California Hotel Association are fully informed concerning the issue. The grass-roots Cigar Rights of America group will also attend and is against the ban.

The motion introduced by Council member Bernard Parks to eliminate smoking almost everywhere is not yet at the committee level, as it would also come before LaBonge’s committee. The Smith motion concerning outdoor dining has to be handled first.

The Los Angeles City Council calendar is fairly quiet for the week of September 29-October 3 due to the beginning of the Jewish New Year. That means there will probably be no action this week on any of the smoking ban initiatives currently in front of the Council.

A meeting of the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging committee is scheduled for this week, but none of the smoking matters are listed on the agenda. An expected meeting on the impact of the proposed smoking area in outdoor dining areas has not yet taken place, but is expected soon.

Opposition to the ban has been forming. The new national grass-roots organization, Cigar Rights of America, opposes the ban, noting that events like the recent God of Fire dinner at the Hotel Bel-Air – which raised $228,600 for charities that benefit children – would be eliminated. Other groups, including the California Restaurant Association, are informed on the issue and are considering their positions.

It’s also noteworthy to see that in other cities, a pushback is being felt against anti-tobacco initiatives. In San Francisco, a ban on selling tobacco products in pharmacies has drawn two lawsuits, from Walgreen Co. (complaining that such products can be sold by large retailers such as CostCo and Wal-Mart and supermarkets, even though both have pharmacies) and Altria (complaining that the ordinance blocks a store from selling a legal product). On October 8, a fairly contentious hearing is expected in Boston on proposed new regulations which would ban outdoor smoking, sales in pharmacies and other restrictions.

Sitting and writing about stopping smoking bans is one thing. Sitting in front of a Los Angeles City Council committee and trying to have an impact is something else.

But someone had to stand up, so I did.

On Wednesday, September 3, I attended a meeting of the City’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee at City Hall. On the agenda were two anti-smoking items which had been working their way through the legislative process:

(1) The first was a draft ordinance (no. 07-1790) banning smoking at city-permitted "farmer’s markets," which had been drafted by the City Attorney following a motion by Council members Wendy Greuel, Jose Huizar and Richard Alarcon in July 2007. The legislative link is here.

The three-member committee – Tom LaBonge (chair), Janice Hahn and Jan Perry – approved the ordinance without objection and it will now be sent on to the full Council, where it will be approved quickly. It will no doubt be signed into law by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

(2) The second item was a request from June made by Council members Greig Smith and Dennis Zine (no. 08-1544) for a ban on smoking in all outdoor dining areas. The committee was being asked to approve the motion to have the City Attorney draw up an ordinance, and then that approval would then have to be agreed to by the full Council to start the drafting process. The legislative link is here.

This was expected to be a more contentious matter and there were 10 speakers. Nine were in favor of the ordinance and I was the lone opposer. My statement to the committee (which Hahn didn’t hear because she was late) included:

I am here today to oppose the proposed, unnecessary ordinances against smoking at Farmer’s Markets and in outdoor dining sections of restaurants.

I am urging you to reject these proposals as unnecessary because they pose no threat to the public health and serve only to demonize smokers.

In the U.S. Surgeon General’s 727-page report on the consequences of involuntary smoking issued in 2006, no recommendations were made concerning outdoor smoking restrictions. In fact, less than a single page in the entire report dealt with outdoor smoking; that report was concerned solely with the impact of indoor smoking. And there are no studies which demonstrate that transient encounters with outdoor smoking create any kind of health hazard.

Because there is no health threat in these outdoor settings, I submit that the City already has an ordinance which covers this issue in section 41.16 of the Municipal Code which reads, "No person shall throw, blow or otherwise scatter on any street, sidewalk, restaurant, cafe, theatre, place of amusement or other public place any snuff, or any substance which injuriously affects the olfactory nerves or which causes sneezing or coughing or otherwise injuriously affects the person."

While it is today fashionable to ban smoking almost everywhere, the proposed ordinance does not address a public health issue and will do nothing to reduce the incidence of smoking in Los Angeles. It does subject smokers, a minority in this community, to additional ridicule for consuming a legal product.

If the City were serious about trying to reduce smoking using Farmer’s Markets or outdoor restaurant sections, it could be promoting smoker’s help programs in these locations. If the City wishes to remove smokers from public view, then it must give them someplace to go which is out of public view.

But for the City to simply continue to ban smoking and then hope it will not have to enforce violations is bad policy and will make a bad law.

The promoters of the ban were the usual suspects: deputies from the Council members who proposed it, the American Lung Association, American Heart Association and so on. Hahn, although for the motion, had questions about enforcement (the Assistant City Attorney present agreed enforcement would have to be done by the Los Angeles Police Department) and LaBonge was concerned about economic impacts to restaurants.

The committee did not approve the motion to have an ordinance drafted, but LaBonge asked for and received a 45-day continuance during which time a "round table" discussion will take place which is to involve all of the stakeholders who would be effected.

But LaBonge had no doubts about the outcome. He said, during the meeting, to the anti-smoking groups, "you’re going to see success eventually" on this item. How much success will depend on how strong the push-back is from restaurants and others during the round-table hearing and then in subsequent hearings when the ordinance is actually drafted.

For myself, I count the continuance and the "round table" meeting as a small win. There is something to the notion that simply showing up is important.

We will post the time and place of the "round table" meeting as soon as we know it. For further information about this meeting, please contact the Fourth District’s legislative deputy, Young-Gi Kim at (213) 485-3337 or by electronic mail at Young-Gi.Kim@lacity.org.

Dr. Michael Siegel is a physician and professor at Boston University who has devoted more than 20 years to research and study of the effects of smoking. He posts comments on tobacco policy on his blog "The Rest of the Story" at TobaccoAnalysis.blogspot.com.

A particularly relevant post was pointed out to me from August 13, 2008, in which Siegal comments on the Bernard Parks motion to ban smoking almost everywhere in Los Angeles. This is an excerpt from a much longer post, but it’s worth reading carefully:

The ordinance would ban smoking in every outdoors location where people "reasonably congregate." Essentially, this means that there would be no outdoors smoking anywhere, with the exception of some dark deserted alleys. If enacted, this would be the most restrictive smoking ban in the nation.

The Rest of the Story

I now understand why anti-smoking advocates and groups are distorting the truth. Because they are promoting such extreme proposals that go far beyond the documented scientific evidence that they need to create their own facts in order to justify these proposals.

You can't credibly argue that smoking needs to be banned everywhere outdoors to protect the health of nonsmokers using the actual truth about the severity of health risk from secondhand smoke exposure. There simply is no evidence that a few wisps of secondhand smoke, as one might encounter from someone smoking on a sidewalk or in a street, parking lot, or park puts people's health at risk and represents a significant public health problem.

The only way to advance these policies, then, is to artificially build up the severity of the harms of secondhand smoke so that you can convince people that any exposure - even a few wisps of smoke - is a severe health hazard.

This, I now realize, is the impetus behind the widespread fallacious claims that are being made by over 100 anti-smoking groups about the cardiovascular effects of brief secondhand smoke exposure.

I no longer believe that this distortion of the science, which goes right up to the level of the Surgeon General (who claimed that brief secondhand smoke exposure was sufficient to cause heart disease and lung cancer), represents a simple, innocent mistake.

It is now clear that this is part of a new agenda (one that I never thought was part of the movement) to extend smoking bans beyond workplaces, restaurants, bars, and other places where there is substantial exposure. The movement is now to virtually ban all smoking outside of the home, so that no nonsmoker ever has to even see a smoker in public.

There simply is no credible alternative explanation for claims - like this one - which are so absurd that they are patently false on their face. You need only think about it for about 3 seconds before you realize that secondhand smoke exposure cannot possibly be more harmful than active smoking.

The epidemiologic evidence obviously does not support such a conclusion. The relative risk of lung cancer associated with chronic active smoking is about 17. The relative risk for lung cancer associated with chronic secondhand smoke exposure is about 1.3. That's a 13-fold difference. It is intuitively clear that smoking is worse than breathing in secondhand smoke. This isn't an example of stretching or exaggerating the facts - it's an example of creating (i.e., fabricating) them.

I should point out that if you take this message seriously, then a rational nonsmoker might actually start smoking. After all, according to the message, it's better to smoke yourself than to be exposed to secondhand smoke. The message truly undermines the severe health effects of active smoking because it states that active smoking is less harmful than secondhand smoke exposure. Thus, the statement is not only fallacious, but it is a dangerous one which undermines years of education of the public about the severe harms of active smoking.

While the main reason why I object to the fabrication of the science is that I view it as unethical, I wish to point out that I also think it undermines our cause of protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. It gives the public the impression (rightly so, apparently) that our goal is not just to save lives and prevent serious medical conditions but instead, that our goal is simply to protect nonsmokers from ever having to breathe in a wisp of secondhand smoke or see a smoker. It makes it appear that we are trying to prohibit smoking through the back door and that de facto prohibition is our real agenda, rather than a legitimate public health interest in protecting nonsmokers from a severe health threat.

To use a half-marathon analogy, I feel like I have been running a half-marathon and I get to the finish line and stop, but everyone else keeps running. I thought the goal was to provide a safe working environment for all employees and to protect nonsmokers from a substantial health hazard in certain outdoors locations where they cannot easily avoid tobacco smoke exposure. Instead, the movement just keeps on going, trying to ban smoking in every possible outdoors location and even starting to infringe upon the private home.

I feel all alone at the finish line, wondering where everyone has gone.

The rest of the story is that I have come to the conclusion that the distortion of the science by anti-smoking groups is not merely an innocent mistake or an uninformed interpretation of scientific evidence. It is, instead, a deliberate attempt to promote an extremist agenda by fabricating scientific evidence that will support an agenda that is simply not supported by the scientific truth.

The entire post goes on for a while, but it’s worth reviewing as it rips the cover off of the anti-tobacco movement now at work in Los Angeles.

Action on the three anti-smoking items currently in process before the Los Angeles City Council has slowed for the time being:

>> On the Grieg Smith-Dennis Zine motion (no. 08-1544) for the City Attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting all smoking of tobacco products in "outdoor dining areas," the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee put off voting on the matter for 45 days so that a meeting could be held with the affected industries, notably restauranteurs. That meeting has not been held as yet, although it is anticipated soon.

>> On the Bernard Parks’ motion (no. 08-2123) to have the City Attorney draw up an ordinance to ban smoking essentially everywhere in Los Angeles, no hearings has been held and it has not, as yet, appeared on the calendar of the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee. It’s not likely they will take it up until the outdoor dining area motion has been handled.

>> On the Parks’ resolution (no. 08-002-S5130) that Los Angeles County ban smoking everywhere, the item was referred to the Rules & Government Committee and no hearing on the item has yet been scheduled. The Rules & Government Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday, September 24 has been cancelled. The next likely meeting date is Wednesday, October 8.

In the meantime, similar measures in Boston and San Francisco are also in the legislative hopper. Hearings in Boston on a measure to ban smoking outdoors will be held on October 8. A San Francisco ordinance similar to the one proposed by Parks was rejected by the County of San Francisco Supervisors and sent back to committee. Among others, a renter’s union was protesting the inclusion of a section that would allow landlords to evict tenants for smoking in common areas!