We Are Not Criminals

Limited L.A. outdoor ban passes

2010-01-21T11:04:00-08:00

A long struggle over outdoor smoking that presaged an even larger battle ended after an 18-month tug-of-war between competing interests in Los Angeles with the passage of an ordinance extending smoking bans to outdoor dining areas of restaurants.

The decidedly-liberal City Council passed the measure (08-1544), which was originally requested by Council member Greig Smith to “prohibit smoking in outdoor dining areas” back in June of 2008. After complaints from cigar smokers, who engaged the anti-smoking lobby at committee hearings and lobbied furiously with funding assistance from Cigar Rights of America, the final version of the ordinance was written in a close-cropped manner:

Specifically exempted from the ordinance were bars; in fact, the final language reads “an outdoor dining area shall not include an area that is continuous to . . . A bar, or a nightclub that requires that its patrons be eighteen or older,” and

An exemption was also added for outdoor dining areas of “A restaurant, business or non-commercial building that is completely closed to the public for a private event.”

These are important in that, as regards restaurants, some smoking-friendly establishments convert to bar status – with only age-18 or older admitted – during late-night hours, and smoking could be allowed at those times, and the exemption for private events held in outdoor dining areas of restaurants or other facilities preserves the ability to hold cigar dinners or other charitable events and have smoking permitted.

While the new ordinance is another unwelcome encroachment on the freedom to smoke outdoors – where there is no health risk from so-called “secondhand smoke” – the exemptions that were won demonstrated again how civic involvement and participation makes a difference. Council member Tom LaBonge, who personally refereed the arguments between the anti-smoking and cigar-smoking groups, said at the initial committee meeting on the Smith motion that the anti-smoking groups “would have success on this,” but recognized that the public’s tolerance for limits on smoking was reaching its limits.

Further, a long discussion about signage requirements under the new ordinance was resolved to no one’s complete satisfaction. There will be a one-year grace period, during which a sign must be “clearly visible and readable to a majority” of restaurant customers that a smoking ban in that area will take effect in January 2011 and then a permanent sign is required which must only be “clearly visible and readable to most diners in the outdoor dining area.” That’s quite a bit less onerous than other smoking-ban signage required in the Los Angeles Municipal Code and signals a very modest signage requirement that businesses must undertake.

In addition, the new ordinance specifies no enforcement mechanism or primary agency, which means that complaints will almost certainly be made to the Los Angeles Police Department, which will just as certainly place a low priority on such calls.

The fight by cigar smokers against the easy passage of this ordinance was successful in that the exemptions carved out of what could have been – and would have been – a blanket ban on outdoor dining areas of all types stand for the proposition that – at least outdoors – smoking is to be allowed in venues for which minors are not admitted. That’s important. (The City of Los Angeles does not control indoor smoking laws because of preemptive California-wide statutes.)

Just as crucial is that the enormous effort expended by cigar smokers against this proposal has left a much more dangerous motion by City Council member Bernard Parks essentially stillborn. His proposal, submitted on August 8, 2008 (08-2123), was to create ordinances which banned smoking in all places in which people might or could congregate, which would essentially ban smoking everywhere in the City except possibly in private homes. That proposal, likely submitted by Parks as an election-year idea in 2008 in his losing campaign to win an open seat as a Los Angeles County Supervisor, was cheered by anti-smoking advocates, but has gone nowhere in the 18 months since he submitted it. It could still be considered, but is most likely to simply expire on August 11 of this year. That’s good.

Indianapolis and L.A. stop smoking ban bills!

2009-10-28T11:01:00-07:00

There seems to be little let-up in the continuing drum-beat of the anti-tobacco lobby, trying to impose more and more restrictions on smoking in city after city across the United States. But in Indianapolis and Los Angeles, extensions of existing smoking bans were slowed down this week.

In Indianapolis, the City Council finally voted on Monday evening on a ferociously-lobbied ordinance that would have extended the city’s existing smoking ban to bars, bowling alleys and nightclubs. But the new ordinance lost by a 13-12 vote, short of the 15 votes needed for passage.

The Council then voted 14-13 to table the proposal, allowing it to return for a vote later in the session. Advocates of the new ban expect it to come up for a vote again early next year.

Indianapolis’s existing smoking ban is pretty severe, including a ban on smoking in all restaurants into which minors are admitted. But the votes for a further ban were not there.

Naturally, the anti-smoking groups pledged to continue their battle, but so did the ban opponents. “If anything is a threat to Indianapolis business, you can expect Indianapolis business owners to fight it,” said Brad Klopfenstein, leader of a coalition called Save Indianapolis Bars, in the Indianapolis Business Journal. “We don’t expect it to go away.”

Despite the defeat, Council member and measure co-sponsor Ben Hunter (R) said he expects the ban extension to eventually pass.

In Los Angeles, a long battle over the extension of a smoking ban to outdoor areas of restaurants continues.

The latest chapter was a meeting of the Los Angeles City Council’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee on Tuesday morning, where a proposed ordinance was ready for passage and to be sent to the City Council for final approval.

But it got nowhere.

A lengthy process of discussions among City Council members and proponents and opponents of the proposed ban on extending the City’s ban to “outdoor dining areas” led to an agreement last year with Committee chair Tom LaBonge that both sides would not object to an ordinance which imposed a smoking ban in outdoor dining areas of restaurants, but not on outdoor serving areas of bars or nightclubs, which also meant that restaurants which switch to adults-only admissions in the evening hours (essentially becoming a bar) could also allow outdoor smoking on their patios.

But the ordinance as drafted by the Los Angeles City Attorney did not reflect that agreement, especially in its requirements for signage which simply said “no smoking” and did not provide for smoking given a change in admissions status for adults only.

Against this background, at the Tuesday morning hearing, anti-smoking advocates tried to push aside the deal worked out in 2008 and asked for a complete smoking ban in outdoor areas of bars and nightclubs, as well as at restaurants at all times. Representatives of the Cigar Rights of America group responded that the committee members had not even inspected the kind of late-night spots that would be impacted, especially for cigar smokers, although LaBonge did visit a bagel shop and diner on a tour with the anti-smoking lobby.

Moreover, the composition of the three-member Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee was changed earlier in the year and instead of Council members Jan Perry and Janice Hahn – who both seemed quite willing to pass any extension of L.A.’s smoking bans – new members Ed Reyes and Herb Wesson had plenty of concerns about not only the signage issues, but also how it would be enforced as the draft ordinance included no provisions for a City agency to be responsible for enforcement.

The anti-smoking forces suggested that private citizens could shoot pictures or video of smokers in outdoor dining areas and turn them in, but LaBonge, instantly recognizing this as the same neighbor-turning-in-neighbor tactics which made the Gestapo so effective in Nazi Germany, was clear that he was not interested in having private citizens acting as the police.

LaBonge also decided to ask for another exemption, for restaurants which have two or more outdoor dining areas, to allow smoking on one if the other is 100 feet or more away.

The matter is now back in the hands of the City Attorney’s Office to re-draft a proposed ordinance, with a possible return hearing on December 8.

The actions in these two American cities were hardly decisive, but are noteworthy in that the anti-smoking lobby is having to work a lot harder and longer to push toward Prohibition than they may have thought they would. Opponents of smoking bans are pushing just as hard to stop their expansion, and given the impacts on freedom and business, legislators are listening.

Pushing for Cigar Rights

2009-09-24T10:54:00-07:00

“In the arena of government, whether at the county courthouse, state capitol or in the halls of Congress, there is no shortage of special interests clamoring for protection from regulation, begging for public dollars, or advocating for a given cause.

“In that regard, the notion of a group fighting for the interests of cigar enthusiasts across the nation is really one that is long overdue.”

That’s Cigar Rights of America executive director Glynn Loope, a veteran public advocate, explaining the creation and rapid expansion of the CRA, which has been an increasing important force in campaigns to protect the rights of cigar smokers all across the United States.

In a lengthy commentary for CigarCyclopedia.com, Loope explained that the massive, continuous attacks on tobacco over the past few years also create opportunities. “In the history of tobacco, there probably has never been few moments in time like that of 2007-2009. It will, indeed, mark a period when one industry was so singled out for political ridicule.

“But out of crisis, is born opportunity. It helped bring the industry together. It helped create coalitions among rival companies. It helped build new alliances among retailers, their suppliers, and a new era of consumer awareness about how government can intrude into one of life’s simple pleasures – enjoying an afternoon cigar.

“It’s a good thing, though, that politics is a process – and times do change. In the course of the governmental process, local, state and federal government actions often need correcting. Legislative bodies realize that they went too far. The economy changes. Relief from past measures is sought. New coalitions are built. Most importantly, though, elections come rather often.

“Cigar Rights of America is being built to engage in this process, to galvanize a new cadre of ‘cigar voters’ that want to tell a story to legislators at all levels – a story that says ‘back off.’ It’s amazing how politicians react when they realize new constituencies are watching their votes, monitoring legislation that impacts a part of their lives, and are willing to voice themselves – publicly.

“There have certainly been rays of hope in this arena. Statewide smoking ban proposals this year have died this year in Louisiana, Texas and Alabama. Cigar bar and lounge proposals have passed in Nebraska and the City of Long Beach, California. Major tax increase proposals that would have impacted cigars died in Florida, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, and Louisiana. CRA’s membership has written and called hundreds of local, state and federal politicians. It’s working.”

What is CRA doing? Loope highlights these efforts, among many:

The Great American Cigar Shop program, which serves as a new political network for the professional tobacconist. It allows CRA to communicate with your local cigar shop, have them convey news to you on issues impacting cigars, while also serving as a new marketing tool for your local retailer. We’ve created a national map showing where ‘we are welcome’ in cigar shops across the country.

The Cigar Rights Government Action Center, on the CRA web site, where you will be able to find every piece of cigar legislation in the nation, from Washington D.C., to your state capitol along with links to every legislative office, and the past voting records of your representatives. You will have the phone numbers and email addresses of every member – everywhere – as we build a national political network of cigar voters.

Technical assistance on political strategies to address smoking bans and burdensome taxes, building grassroots organizations that can mobilize those that enjoy great cigars, and are tired of being the ‘easy target.’

Consistent communication to the membership on state and federal issues impacting the industry, from the manufacturer, to the locally owned cigar shop, to your ability to enjoy a cigar – sometimes on your own property.

Coalition building, by reaching out to those that support the cause of enjoying cigars. We have friends . . . some we didn’t even know about. Throughout the country (and depending upon the region and community) new coalitions are being built with the restaurant, tavern and bar, and gaming sectors. There are also opportunities with state and national anti-tax and burdensome government organizations such as Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, and assorted pro-business and individual freedom national advocacy organizations.

CRA now has members in all 50 states and retail tobacconist members in 45. Best of all, membership is increasing dramatically, up 86% since the beginning of the year.

You can join today for just $35 for a single year or $500 for a lifetime membership. There are plenty of tangible benefits in addition to fighting for your rights to smoke:

Cigar facility tour drawings: CRA is providing members an opportunity to tour the cigar- producing facilities of Central America through a monthly drawing. Member companies are providing (less airfare) all-expense-paid experiences at their facilities in the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Bahamas.

‘Members Only’ cigars: CRA has launched its own sampler of custom-blended cigars from its member companies. Available only to members of CRA, these unique cigars are ‘one of a kind’ and not otherwise offered for sale anywhere.

Cigar Rights Clubs of the States: CRA is working with the retail and consumer membership of each state, seeking to build new camaraderie among state members, hosting special events and with opportunities for the membership to enjoy cigars, with those that made them.

Member’s-only events: CRA is hosting, with supporting partners, special events in communities across the country.

Loope notes, “All of this seeks to raise your interest, to let you know that this is a serious point in time for those of us that look to that cigar as more than just an object, but as a passion that allows us to ‘slow down life.’ A cigar is not a product – it’s a moment. It’s a time with friends. It’s something that shouldn’t be intruded upon or burdened with overzealous legislation and onerous taxation. We need you. We need each other.”

He’s right. Please consider joining CRA right now.

Smoking bans mean less business

2009-08-20T10:49:00-07:00

The anti-smoking movement will tell you, over and over again, that smoking bans do not harm businesses. Two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis beg to differ:

Smoking was banned in all Illinois casinos in January 2008. We explore the effects that the smoking ban has had on Illinois casino revenue and attendance. Our empirical methodology extends and enhances that of previous literature in that we observe a natural experiment in comparing the performance of Illinois casinos with out-of-state casinos (no smoking ban) that share a market with Illinois casinos. Estimates suggest that revenue and admissions at Illinois casinos declined by more than 20 percent ($400 million) and 12 percent, respectively. Calculations reveal that casino tax revenue to state and local governments declined by approximately $200 million.

The study, Casino Revenue and the Illinois Smoking Ban was released in June by the Federal Reserve and written by Assistant Vice President Thomas A. Garrett and Michael R. Pakko (pictured above; just appointed Chief Economist & State Economic Forecaster at the Institute for Economic Advancement at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock) and is one of the strongest possible signals that smoking bans of all kinds have real impacts.

It also notes, quite clearly, that it’s hardly wise to take anti-smoking advocate claims about this subject at face value. The authors note on page 2 that “Research on the effects of a smoking ban on casino revenue has to date focused on the state of Delaware, which implemented a smoke-free law in December 2002. In the first study on the subject, Mandel, Alamar and Glantz (2005) found that the smoking ban in Delaware had a negative but statistically insignificant effect on gaming revenue. After correcting for errors in the Mandel, Alamar and Glantz (2005) study, Pakko (2006) found that the smoking ban in Delaware casinos resulted in a loss of $6 million, which represented a loss of over 12 percent relative to the average monthly revenue in the year preceding the smoking ban. In a subsequent study, Pakko (2008) examined the effect on individual casino revenue in Delaware as a result of the smoking ban, with a total revenue effect of approximately 15 percent. Finally, Thalheimer and Ali (2008) estimate a system of slot machine demand equations for the three Delaware casinos. They find that the smoking ban in Delaware reduced gaming demand by nearly 16 percent.” (Emphasis added; the Mandel, Alamar and Glantz study was produced by anti-tobacco activist researchers.)

The current study notes that in 2007, prior to the imposition of the smoking ban, Illinois casinos generated almost $2 billion in revenue and about $805 million in state and local governmental tax revenues. A careful review of the data from the Illinois casinos compared to competing casinos geographically close by in neighboring states of Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Michigan showed that the smoke-free Illinois casinos had revenue drops of 20% and attendance drops of 10% in 2008 overall; the authors concluded that “the impact of the smoking ban on total admissions amounts to around 10 percent, with our point estimates indicating a downturn of 9 to 13 percent. These estimates imply substantial losses in tax revenue for the state and local communities which host casinos: total casino tax revenue was down by approximately $200 million.”

The only Illinois casino which did not see as much of an impact is located in Peoria and more than 90 miles away from the next closest gaming facility. That suggests that where smoking-allowed and smoke-free casinos are located close to each other, the smoking-allowed facility is going to do better absent other factors, but location and competition make a difference.

“Casinos aren’t the only businesses to suffer with legislated smoking bans,” added Chris McCalla, legislative director of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association (IPCPR). “And when business goes down, employees are eliminated or the businesses close. That means loss of jobs and loss of tax revenues. Nobody wins.

“We’re not against individual business owners declaring no smoking on their premises. It’s their right to do so. It’s local, state and federal governments that should not interfere with the rights of individuals.”

What about restaurants? Anti-smoking advocates shriek with authority that smoking bans do not hurt restaurants and bars, but in a footnote on page 1, Garrett and Pakko wrote:

“Recent studies include Phelps (2006), Adams and Cotti (2007), and Fleck and Hanssen (2008). Phelps (2006) and Adams and Cotti (2007) used nationwide county–level employment data and examined the change in employment in bars and restaurants after communities adopted a smoking ban. Neither study found significant employment changes at restaurants, on average, but both find statistically significant employment declines at bars, with loss estimates ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent. Fleck and Hanssen (2008) analyzed quarterly restaurant data for 267 California cities over 25 years. They find a statistically-significant 4 percent decline in revenue that is attributed to smoking bans.

The anti-smoking lobby wants people to think they have truth on their side. This new study, along with others it cites, begins to paint a much more balanced picture that is, in fact, much closer to the truth.

Stunning compilation of the tax burden on tobacco

2009-05-22T10:46:00-07:00

In his closing essay to the Summer 2009 issue of Cigar Magazine, Lew Rothman essentially writes a farewell to the cigar industry, which he calls “in freefall.”

Between smoking bans, taxes and public disdain, smokers are in their most difficult era in centuries. Rothman notes the almost incomprehensible tax burden on smokers, with cigarette smokers faring the worst. While we’re not much interested in cigarettes here, Rothman’s calculations are too startling not to consider carefully:

“Under the guise of protecting the public and our youth from the dangers of the filthy tobacco weed, and through the continuous dissemination of trumped-up numbers pertaining to the amount of deaths and health care costs attributable to tobacco, the government has conveniently absconded with 90 percent of the revenue generated by the industry. That’s right – 90 percent of the money paid by the public on all tobacco products goes right into the coffers of federal, state and local government.

“Look, I don’t want to bore you with a million numbers, so let’s just look at the cost of one pack of cigarettes on Wall Street, since every news article seems to view that as the center of the universe during this economic downturn. Even of a company like RJ Reynolds or Philip Morris gave its cigarettes away free, and every tobacco distributor passed on the cigarettes to retail shops free, and every retail shop gave the cigarettes away free, the federal and state tobacco taxes alone, plus the 8.375 percent New York sales tax, would result in a price of $5.70 per pack!”

That is monstrous, and a lesson to those who value freedom. United States Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion in the landmark McCullouch vs. Maryland decision way back in 1819, noted that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” That’s exactly what the anti-smoking lobby, aided by our government, is trying to do, as Rothman concludes:

I was always taught that government here in the United States was instituted to protect our individual rights. Today, it seems that concept has been changed to one where government gets to decide what our individual rights are. I fear for the future of our great nation. Things have gotten out of control.”

L.A. compromise is a victory

2009-01-09T10:44:00-08:00

Any adoption or expansion of a smoking ban can hardly be thought of as a win for those who cherish smoker’s rights and especially cigar rights. But the Wednesday vote of the Los Angeles City Council’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee (reported on in depth yesterday) represents a new opportunity for smokers to make a legitimate case for places of their own to enjoy a legal product.

It’s true that the approved instructions for a new ordinance still have to be turned into actual language by the City Attorney and the process could be derailed. But if the agreed-to compromise between Councilman Grieg Smith, the anti-smoking regulars and the opposition led by cigar smokers and the cigar trade with the help of Cigar Rights of America has several positive points in its favor for the future, in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

The usual tactic of the anti-smoking forces is to take whatever compromise is available if their moves are opposed and then come back in six months or a year and ask for more restrictions. One participant in the negotiations noted, however, that Smith’s staff asked the anti-smoking groups if that was their tactic and when assured that it was not, indicated that Smith would strongly oppose any future expansions of his proposal from the compromise voted on this week. Although such an expansion could be introduced by another Council member, Smith has the lead on this issue because he introduced the current proposal.

Although the new law, if passed, will create more restrictions on smokers, there aren’t many places to which it will apply. Estimates from the California Restaurant Association already indicated that more than 90% – perhaps 96-97% or more – of all Los Angeles-area restaurants with outdoor dining areas do not allow smoking on their patios because the overwhelming majority of customers do not want it. Those who argued against the ban and fought for a compromise were hard-pressed to name more than a handful (literally) of places which allow cigar smoking, even if they allow cigarette smoking!

Most importantly, the compromise language creates – possibly for the first time – a clear conceptual delineation between where smoking is to be allowed and not. The agreement voted through on Wednesday says essentially that as a matter of public policy in a largely non-smoking metropolis, smoking is to be allowed in public gathering places where minors are not allowed. Although the anti-smoking forces bellowed about the health impacts of outdoor smoking, Smith specifically brought up the issue of exposure to children in his comments and it was on that basis that the compromise was reached.

Based on this important concept, which was the foundation of Wednesday’s agreement, one can envision a cottage industry of restaurants, bars and other facilities in which smoking will be allowed if entry is age-restricted. Indoor smoking is not permitted in California because of the alleged “need to protect” workers from secondhand smoke exposure, but even this may change over time for age-restricted facilities.

From the cigar smoker’s standpoint, this kind of restriction makes some sense because most cigar smoking does not take place in the presence of minors, except at home. And now the nation’s second-largest city has taken a position which does not simply humiliate smokers further, but balances the 86% majority of non-smokers against the appropriate and recognized rights of adult smokers to enjoy a legal product.

This is a significant and exportable line of thought and fully supports the rights of smokers to enjoy themselves in adults-only facilities such as cigar shops and tobacco bars.

A collateral benefit to the vigorous opposition to the proposed outdoor dining area ban on smoking is the likelihood that the proposal to ban smoking essentially everywhere in Los Angeles introduced by Councilman Bernard Parks last August is more or less frozen, on its way to being dropped at some point in the future.

Parks proposed that smoking be prohibited anywhere people gather, which would include on the city’s streets, in common areas of apartment buildings and so on. It raised the specter of a police state in which the Los Angeles Police Department would have to spend an enormous amount of time issuing tickets . . . or ignore the law.

Although Parks’ proposal will not be dismissed and will linger on the books for some time, it would have to come before the same committee once again to be considered. And for now and some time into the future, Councilman Tom LaBonge and his Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee don’t have much interest in debating smoking again.

L.A. smoking compromise advances

2009-01-08T10:30:00-08:00

A lengthy and intense debate over an outdoor smoking ban in Los Angeles was essentially resolved on Wednesday afternoon at a meeting of the City’s Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee.

After nearly five months of wrangling between anti-smoking supporters and cigar rights promoters, with substantial help from the Cigar Rights of America grass-roots advocacy group, the three-member committee voted unanimously to adopt a compromise motion on a modest extension of the City’s existing anti-smoking policy:

Smoking will be banned in outdoor dining areas, with the following exemptions:

(1) The new smoking policy exempts existing outdoor areas of establishments/businesses that operate as bars, nightclubs or lounges.

(2) The new policy exempts cigar shops that operate under current City planning and zoning regulations.

(3) The new policy exempts restaurants with an outdoor dining area that allows smoking when the establishment moves to a “club,” “lounge,” “bar” or “nightclub” experience and only when entry is age restricted (exemption occurs when the alcohol age restriction or “carding” begins).

To clarify, the ENTIRE establishment, not just the bar area or outdoor dining area, will be age restricted.

(4) All private events (events that are ticketed such as fundraising events, private parties) are exempt from the new policy.

(5) There will be a six-month education and warning period after final Council vote.

From this point, the City Attorney’s Office must now draft the actual language of an ordinance, which will then go to the full City Council for approval, which is essentially assured.

The back story on this compromise language demonstrated the power of showing up to protest, no matter how long the odds. There’s little doubt that when Councilman Grieg Smith made a motion to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas last July, it was expected to roll through without even a hiccup in committee. But a single protester against the ban in the first committee hearing led to a meeting of interested parties and then the process slowed down as both sides began meeting with individual Council members and their policy deputies.

The hero in this story, from the standpoint of trying to create good public policy, has to be Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee chair Tom LaBonge (4th District). He was the one who insisted on having additional meetings on the potential economic impact of such a ban and made sure that both sides were not simply heard, but had meaningful opportunities to make their case not simply in public hearings, but in private meetings where the real discussion is held.

In the end, Smith’s staff hammered out the final agreement, meeting with each advocacy group to obtain a consensus that both sides could live with this language. There is a significant opportunity for cigar advocates in other communities to build on this development in Los Angeles in the future; we’ll have a fuller analysis of the policy impact of Wednesday’s vote tomorrow.

Smoking rights are just the start

2008-12-25T10:25:00-08:00

There’s no doubt that 2008 has been a tumultuous year and on this holiday, it’s worthwhile to reflect on both the positives and negatives.

Certainly in the U.S., the economy and the election are the major features of the year and for cigar smokers, while the quality of cigars now in production is as good as it ever has been, places to enjoy them with friends are fewer and fewer.

Heinrich Villiger noted recently in an interview with the European Cigar-Cult Journal that “The ban on smoking, not only in Europe, but also in the USA, has already led to a clear stagnation of the growth of the premium cigar market sector,” adding that “the importers’ warehouses are anything but empty...”

There’s no doubt that the anti-smoking lobby continues to push hard against cigarettes, and cigars are simply swept up in the tide. But there were indications – albeit modest ones – that even non-smokers are beginning to appreciate the over-reaching of the antis.

Of special note is a December 23 essay titled “Blowing Smoke over Private Property Rights” by Russ Harding, director of the Property Rights Network at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market-themed research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Michigan. Every cigar smoker who values a place to enjoy their hobby needs to read it, and it is reproduced here in full:

Although popular in some quarters, government-imposed smoking prohibitions are an assault on private property rights. So it's good news that the Michigan Legislature has acted wisely by leaving in place current law that allows businesses — including restaurant and bar owners — to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking on their property.

Smoking bans may not strike most people as an obvious government property taking in the same manner as seizing someone's home to make way for a new highway, but both are an erosion of the right to use one's own private property free from government meddling.

Special interest groups lobbying for the ban contend that second-hand smoke has negative health effects. For example, the American Lung Association points to a study by the California Environmental Protection Agency that estimated some 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths occur each year in non-smokers due to second-hand smoke exposure.

These findings, however, are called into doubt by a 2003 article in the British Medical Journal that examined statistics from an American Cancer Society cancer prevention study that tracked 118,094 adults from 1959 to 1998. These kinds of long-term (longitudinal) studies using a very large sample are considered the gold standard of epidemiological research.

The focus of BMJ article was 35,561 people included in that large study who never smoked but were married to smokers. The authors concluded there was no statistically significant casual relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality, although they did not rule out a small effect. The conclusion was that the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Smoking ban proponents also cite anecdotal evidence that the policy helps business at bars, restaurants, casinos and bowling alleys. The people who actually know what they're talking about, however, — the owners of these establishments — generally oppose laws that repeal their right to choose for themselves what to allow or not allow on their own property.

In fact, many restaurants have already chosen to not allow smoking. For some this is no doubt a good business decision. Forcing it on others will almost certainly cost them money, since every establishment is different, each with its own unique clientele who have their own particular tastes and preferences.

Since no individual is forced to work or dine at any particular establishment, and plenty of choice exists between smoking and non-smoking ones, shouldn't this be an area where we let freedom ring?

C.S. Lewis wrote: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive . . . those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Most Americans don't smoke, but they do own property. The issue today may be smoking bans, but tomorrow it may be prohibiting other individual choices in how to use your own property. The price of freedom is eternal diligence: Now is the time to say, "Enough!" when it comes to undue government interference with private property rights.

As indoor smoking is being completely eliminated – in some cities and states, even in smokeshops – and the antis work to eliminate smoking outdoors, Harding’s commentary is a warning.

The only ways to push back against this tide is by involvement in the public process and through court challenges. Cigar smokers must, it is sad to say, monitor the legislative process and protest as loudly as possible whenever further smoking bans are proposed. The anti-tobacco forces have religious zeal in their push to try and eliminate smoking worldwide and have made local and national governments a willing accomplice in many places. But not all.

In Los Angeles, a dedicated group of smokers, retailers and manufacturers has been quietly speaking with members of the City Council and their staffs about the various proposed smoking ban extensions since a proposed outdoor dining area ban was brought before a Council committee last August. Over the past five months, Council offices have been meeting with both the anti-tobacco lobby and with pro-cigar groups thanks in significant part to assistance from the Cigar Rights of America grass-roots support group. The result has been a much more balanced view of the issues faced by smokers, as market forces have reduced the number of restaurants with outdoor dining areas to well less than 10%. We are the minority that should be protected, in the consumption of a legal product. That message was heard and although not popular with some, has resonated with elected officials whose mandate is to serve all of the people of Los Angeles and a compromise that both sides can agree with is being sought.

The Kansas City Council was similarly lobbied by smokeshops and especially by Outlaw Cigar Co. owner Kendall Culbertson to carve an exception for smokeshops into the voter-approved smoking ban. After some months of effort, a very modest exemption was created, a victory for common sense, but one which was jeered by the antis.

And in Dallas, what was expected to be a rollover win for the anti-smoking forces to impose a much wider smoking ban ended with the Dallas Morning News characterized as a modest expansion of the existing ban to bars and billiard halls.

Even in Boston, where the “Public Health Commission” approved a very wide expansion of the city’s smoking ban, pressure from cigar-bar owners won a 10-year reprieve from closure with a procedure to allow an even longer exemption.

Pressure works and if we are to enjoy cigars anywhere in 2010, 2015, 2020 and beyond, we have to be activists and politicians as well as cigar enthusiasts.

L.A. outdoor ban argued vigorously at City Hall

2008-10-17T00:36:19-07:00

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:

The California indoor smoking ban eliminated so many places where cigars can be enjoyed that implementing a ban outdoors leaves virtually nowhere to smoke outside the home (and cigar smoking is a social activity).

That there is no substantive public health threat from second-hand smoke in outdoor settings. This was challenged rather loudly, but copies of the two leading studies in this area were produced for the Council member to examine himself.

That high-end restaurants such as the Arnie Morton’s of Chicago chain value the cigar clientele so highly that it is installing - at considerable expense - smoking patios in as many locations as possible to cater to this niche group. Numerous other restaurants have made similar investments in Los Angeles and if the ban passes, those dollars will have been spent for nothing.

That cigar events which raise hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for many charities will be largely wiped out by the outdoor dining area ban and completely eliminated by the Parks proposal banning all smoking in public.

That the total ban proposed by Parks would simply shut the doors of both of the retail shops present and many more in the City.

That there are already such a high percentage of outdoor dining areas that do not allow smoking that no legislation is needed.

That if an outdoor dining area smoking ban is adopted, it will inevitably become an enforcement problem which will require the attention of the Los Angeles Police Department.

In terms of common ground, the health-advocacy side pointed out that the Smith motion intends to allow smoking in outdoor areas of bars (as opposed to restaurants) and that “cigar nights” or special smoking events could be permitted. It was suggested from the cigar-rights side that a measure which declares an outdoor dining area as either all-smoking or all-non-smoking would ensure that no non-smoker would sit in a smoking area . . . and vice versa, and would be enforced by the proprietor rather than having to be enforced by the police.

What’s the outcome?

LaBonge, to his credit, listened carefully and was even-handed with both groups. He acknowledged that as a former smoker himself, he is sensitive to the issue . . . on both sides. He also noted that while a health argument can be made for the ban, the issue of choice for adults to be able to use a legal product is also compelling.

The councilman observed that while anti-smoking advocates have been enjoying a lot of success in promoting and passing smoking bans, the point where the interests of the anti-smoking lobby is now meeting resistance from those who prize their choice to enjoy a legal product - tobacco - has been reached.

Although his opinion is that the “smoking era is over” and that widespread use of tobacco (cigarettes, anyway) may disappear over the next 25-30 years, he was also clear as that as a legislator, that day is in the future and this is 2008 in Los Angeles.

LaBonge would like to find a compromise on the Smith motion for the outdoor dining area smoking ban that is minimally acceptable to both sides represented at the meeting and will be meeting with representatives of both sides over the next three weeks to try to cobble together an agreement. It’s worth noting that he also had the vibe, even from the anti-smoking side, that the Parks proposal for a total public smoking ban was “too overwhelming” for a city the size of Los Angeles in terms of scope, likely adherence and enforcement compared with the relatively tiny towns which have adopted analogous measures such as Calabasas, California.

We will continue to monitor developments on both of these motions.

Status 10/13: Round-table meeting this week

2008-10-14T19:59:57-07:00

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.