Yet another trend that swept through New York and Los Angeles is making its way to Dallas.
The Dallas City Council Health, Environment and Human Services subcommittee has been discussing banning smoking in restaurants for some time. Although few members support a complete public smoking ban, a majority (10-5) of members do support a measure to ban smoking in restaurants.
City councilwoman Veletta Forsythe Lill says the smoking ordinance was last updated in 1985 and was considered a progressive ordinance at that time. Lill says much has been learned since then about the effects of second hand smoke, and now it seems fitting to review the ordinance that worked in the ’80s.
In last week’s debate, several variations of the ordinance were presented to the Dallas City Council. Councilmember Sandy Greyson said in addition to hearing the Environmental Health Commission’s recommendations, they looked at proposals including no smoking in restaurants with or without a bar, no smoking in restaurants or bars that aren’t restaurants, and a complete smoking ban in all public places.
“I would like to see Dallas stay with the current ordinance which requires separate smoking and non-smoking sections,” Greyson said.
According to Lill, the Environmental Health Commission recommended “all new and significantly updated eating establishments should be tobacco smoke-free venues except that optional smoking sections may be established that meet certain requirements. Tobacco smoke-free in a new or significantly updated establishment means that the entire establishment is nonsmoking except for an optional smoking area which must be separately ventilated and so constructed and operated that no smoking section air enters the public nonsmoking areas.”
Although the measure is opposed by both hotel and restaurant associations because of costs, the idea would take three years to phase in.Reaction from Dallas restaurants to the potential ordinance is mixed. The Greater Dallas Restaurant Association feels that if smoking was no longer allowed in bars attached to restaurants, “[patrons] may migrate to bars where smoking was still allowed.”
In contrast, many restaurant owners have looked at studies done in other cities on the effects of smoking bans on business, which have tended to find no effect on sales.
New York was one of the first cities to impose a smoking ban in restaurants and studies have shown that job growth, income and local sales have gone unchanged. Other cities were quick to adopt such policies in light of positive results.
Massachusetts implemented their smoking ban when the Center for Survey Research at the University of Massachusetts at Boston found that many Americans avoid restaurants and bars because of the risks of second-hand smoke.
Recently, the college town of Tempe, Ariz., extended the city’s smoking ban to all bars, restaurants, pool halls and bowling alleys, citing everyone has the right to breathe air free of pollutants.
The idea of smoking bans isn’t just to protect patrons. Smoky bars and restaurants often leave bartenders or waitresses hoarse by the end of the weekend. CNN reported that a study by the University of California at San Francisco found out of the three-quarters of bartenders that suffered from lung problems before smoking bans took effect, 60 percent were completely free of those problems. The same study showed it was possible to regain 4 percent of lung capacity within a month.
Since almost 30 percent of college students smoke, the issue may mean some big changes for SMU students. While the ban would affect nearly all of those students, many don’t seem to be worrying. Sophomore Kori Williams says although she is a smoker, she wouldn’t mind if it was banned in restaurants.
“I don’t like smoke around when I’m eating, and I can always have a cigarette when I leave the restaurant,” Williams said.
Lill, who also was a smoker through her twenties, is a supporter of the ban in restaurants, too.
“I believe that eventually we will see a total ban in public places,” she said. “However, updates to smoking policy are usually incremental and not revolutionary.”
