Smoked Out

Will "self-enforcement" be enough for Houston's expanded smoking ban to work?

Chad Crowe

Related Content

More About

"What are you going to do, charge me with smoking?"
Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone), Basic Instinct

How does that old saying go? When cigarette smoking is outlawed, only outlaws will smoke cigarettes? If so, Houston's outlaw ranks may be about to swell in numbers not seen since the glory days of Willie and Waylon and the boys. So smoke up, nicotine-addicted Bayou City barflies, because after midnight this Friday you'll have to step outside to indulge your filthy, filthy habit.

Or you're supposed to, anyway. If you insist on lighting up indoors starting September 1, your fellow patrons will be well within their rights to ask you to step outside, nicely or not. In fact, the city sort of expects them to, because there are only two "environmental investigators" on the entire City of Houston payroll with the specific job of enforcing the ban; until two weeks ago, there was only one. His name is Jeff Conn, and most of the time he doesn't work nights. Otherwise the city expects smokers to comply with the ordinance City Council approved last October through a policy it refers to as "self-enforcement."

A kind of tobacco honor system? This is a joke, right? Not to Kathy Barton, spokeswoman for the city's Department of Health and Human Services. "I don't know that that's a great term," she admits. "I think what we're trying to convey is that the nonsmoking public is very likely, as they've done in the past, to ask smokers who are smoking where they're not supposed to be to stop."

Although she agrees with Barton ("nonsmokers don't have any problem butting into other people's business"), that spells trouble to Rudyard's owner Leila Rod­gers. "I think it's a recipe for unnecessary violence," she says. "I see people getting in each other's face over the whole issue. I see people who smoke going, 'Call the cops,' and the nonsmokers going, 'Screw you, I'm going to punch you out.'"

"We'd rather not be the ones that have to enforce these things, but we understand the city can't be in every pub," says Joe Stinebaker, co-owner of the Harp on Richmond. "Nor would they want to be."

Does this mean, then, that should someone dare to light up in their presence, nonsmokers are hereby empowered to take the law into their own hands and make a citizen's arrest? "Of course not," scoffs Barton, who would prefer they just inform the management. "It's not an arrestable offense."

As a matter of fact, the city has no plans to punish smokers who flout the ban, just the bars that allow it to happen. For such places — cigar bars, tobacco stores, private rooms at nursing homes and some hotel and meeting rooms remain exempt — a violation means either a warning or fine between $50 and $2,000, depending on their previous violations (if any) and what kind of mood the municipal court judge is in that day. But provided they take even elementary preventive measures, their chances of getting busted are pretty remote. Since the city's ban on smoking in all indoor public areas — the one that originally exempted bars, including those in some restaurants — went into effect two years ago, Barton says 65 places received warnings out of 365 complaints and 357 investigations. "We don't write these citations very often," she admits.

To comply with the ordinance, bars must remove all ashtrays and prominently display "No Smoking" signs. That's what the city's 43 "sanitarians," who primarily scout for food-safety violations, will now be looking for, either on their routine semiannual inspections or complaint-driven spot inspections. Those will occur, says Jeff Conn, when someone contacts the health department, which will send the establishment a warning letter. If the response is deemed inadequate, or there is no response, Conn or his colleague will pay them a visit.

In other words, bars that continue to allow smoking indoors face little danger of being raided mid-cigarette, but they'd better make sure those signs are up, the ashtrays are gone and they sweep all the stray butts off the floor at the end of the night. And Conn says there's no guarantee an inspector won't show up after normal business hours.

"If we have to go out at night, we'll either work overtime or flex our time," he says. "We don't have immediate response — it's physically impossible for us to do that — but we'll do the best we can to go at a reasonable time that the establishment might be in violation."

"I'm certain there are going to be some bars who are not going to be sincere in their efforts," Barton adds, "and we'll deal with them when it comes to our ­attention."

All the bars and venues the Press talked to said they would, however begrudgingly, comply with at least the letter of the new law. But to hold onto their customers, many will have to do a lot more. Walter's on Washington and Meridian both plan to build outdoor patio areas, and the Continental Club plans to expand its existing patio. The Harp already has an outdoor deck, but Stinebaker says the smoking ban has forced the owners to cough up a "significant amount" for an awning to cover the deck, as well as new lighting and fans for ventilation.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • Roy 09/14/2007 2:46:00 PM

    I find it amusing that bars and clubs were allowed to be non-smoking before the ban, but they were few and far between why? They are lame, and everyone went to bars that were smoking. It infringes upon the rights of the owners to determine their own policies as they "own" their club/bar and if you don't appreciate smoking I have a novel idea - DON'T GO

  • Joe 09/11/2007 5:09:00 AM

    "...but find it perfectly acceptable to get drunk off our asses, jump in a car and wipe out a family of four?" No, I think that's pretty much illegal too. In fact I'm sure of it.

  • Barb 09/06/2007 5:41:00 PM

    Give me a freaking break. We outlaw cigarettes, but find it perfectly acceptable to get drunk off our asses, jump in a car and wipe out a family of four? Talk about screwed up priorities. Which is the worse of the two? I'll make you a deal - I'll quit smoking when everyone quits drinking. Oh thats right, I forgot...drinking is the lesser or the two evils. If you don't believe me, ask your mayor whose underage daughter was accused of underaged drinking and driving. I believe the police were wrong in that instance because the case was dropped???? Big brother is alive and well in Houston and we are all little lambs allowing it to happen.

  • D 09/05/2007 1:16:00 PM

    ".... but also most non-smokers die from heart or cancer related illness, so how can these be smoking related deseases duh.... " But smokers die sooner. About 14 years on average. The 'second-hand smoke is harmless' theory holds no water. You assume that the entire cigarette is smoked. What about the time that it just sits there burning? Is it somehow less toxic just because the smoke isn't directly inhaled from the butt. I think not.

  • John Davis 09/04/2007 8:58:00 PM

    Wow, that is pretty cool. Time to quit smoking anyways. JT www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com "Online Privacy when it Counts"

  • Jack Ritchie 08/30/2007 10:18:00 PM

    I know that the anti-smoking coalition/movement is armed with false information such as manipulated data, targeted surveys, and exaggerations. For instance, most smokers die from heart or cancer related illness.... but also most non-smokers die from heart or cancer related illness, so how can these be smoking related deseases duh.... It would be more truthful to say non-smoking related diseases since they effect most of the 70% of the population who doesn't smoke. Thats just one example of the frauds that the general public has accepted as supposed fact. Doesn't anyone use their brain anymore? In the original release of the EPA second hand smoke report (before quickly being retracted from public issuance), it gave their definition of relative risk as "An ESTIMATE of the UNKNOWN, but Believed to be true". Smokers are being subjected to legal hate crimes, anti's using falsities as justification...where is justice, where is fairness, what happened to the smoker compromises made (smoking sections, etc.), where is compassion for your brothers, sisters, parents, neighbors, etc..... it's alright to discriminate against smokers, no one will stand up for them, it's alright for the burden of over-grown government to be on their shoulders through taxation without representation, and on and on. Perhaps its time for this country and the so called free world country's to have their governments elimated and replaced with something hopefully better or with one like what was really intended by our country's founding fathers.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy