DON'T LET THE PACKS BACK

Smoking in California bars has been banned less than a month; state
lawmakers shouldn't backtrack on a matter of health WHATEVER mitigation
eventually might be taken against the statewide ban on smoking in bars that
went into effect at the beginning of this month, it would be foolish for
the Legislature to repeal the law.

That, however, was a live possibility after the Assembly backed the repeal
Wednesday by a 42-24 margin. The Assembly passed an attempt last year to
keep the ban from going into effect, but the Senate failed to take up the
measure and it died.

First, question how furiously Big Tobacco is pushing this repeal and how
much money it will pour into legislators' campaign piggy banks.
Historically, Big Tobacco has lavished millions of dollars on "persuasion"
in Sacramento.

In fairness, this issue also affects many small businessmen and
businesswomen. About 35,000 bars, casinos and clubs are affected by the
ban. Some owners complain that the ban has hurt business in the short run,
but most of them know that in the long run it will increase their
patronage, just as an earlier prohibition did in restaurants.

Bars have been one of the last refuges of smokers. Curling cigarette smoke
is part of the imagery of traditional bar scenes. But in sufficient doses,
that same smoke has been shown to kill. Customers and employees were
subjected to carcinogenic second-hand smoke whether they liked it or not.

Since the ban on smoking in bars went into effect Jan. 1, it frequently has
been flouted. Some smokers and bartenders have taken a lackadaisical, even
defiant, attitude toward enforcement. Such civil disobedience, or
indifference, will change. Few people any longer try to sneak a smoke in
the lavatories of passenger planes, and those who are caught are punished
severely. Change takes time, but it happens.

It makes no sense to regress. No one can reasonably argue that bars aren't
healthier without cigarette smoke wafting about.

Most bars complied quietly. Some have made do in creative ways. They comply
with the law but still allow smoking on outside terraces or in specially
ventilated rooms where employees can't venture. Bars in which only the
owners work still can permit smoking. Someday, high-tech ventilation
systems may allow smokers freedom of choice while safeguarding the health
of employees and other patrons.

Until then, lawmakers shouldn't let smoke get to their brains. They should
keep the ban on smoking in bars and let the social complications work
themselves out. Everyone will be healthier for it.

)1998 San Francisco Examiner