OP-ED; City smoking ban: Its time has come

Thomas M. KEANE, Jr.
850 words
27 September 2002
Boston Herald
All Editions
027
English
(Copyright 2002)

So why did Boston Mayor Thomas Menino choose the last week of September to announce his plan to ban smoking in Boston?

Perhaps it's to prove that, reports to the contrary, his third term is not mired in ennui. A smoking ban is bold policy, the kind that makes front pages in local papers and garners national press as well.

It could be Menino is simply playing catch-up to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who announced his own plan to ban smoking this summer. Menino is president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and needs to be ahead of the curve.

Or maybe the mayor is trying to inject a frisson of excitement into the middle of a dull campaign for governor, showing once again that local issues matter - and that they certainly touch people's lives more directly than dry discussions of investment hurdles for the state's pension fund.

Whatever the reason, it's a welcome move.

The puzzle, however, is why it didn't happen four years ago.

In 1998, Boston's Public Health Commission conducted extensive public hearings on second-hand smoking. The purpose was to consider a ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places in the city.

The health commission could do this because, in Massachusetts, local boards of health have the authority to put in place regulations affecting public health and safety. Anti-smoking activists, frustrated by city councils constantly caving to the tobacco industry, figured out that they could use boards of health to do an end run around recalcitrant councilors. Since second-hand smoke affects health, they had reasoned, boards of health could ban smoking in public places.

A few did, notably Brookline. Not surprisingly, tobacco companies and restaurant associations sued, challenging the boards' authority. They lost.

However, the boards of health could only make their decisions based on public health considerations. Science, not politics, was supposed to drive their decision-making. Testimony before the commission made it clear that it didn't matter whether one worked in a bar or a restaurant - the health hazard was just as great. Logic demanded that if there was to be any ban, it had to be complete.

And then the mayor jumped into the fray. Fearing an outright ban would be too controversial, he went for a compromise, throwing his support behind a watered-down version of a ban. Under his proposal, establishments with liquor licenses would have broad exemptions. Bars would face no restrictions. Restaurants supposedly could not allow smoking in dining areas, but could in areas around their bars.

Menino's plan was politically astute, getting him favorable press from anti-smoking activists while avoiding the wrath of most smokers. Still, it made a hash of the science, as the members of the health commission well knew.

Nevertheless, the commission adopted Menino's proposal.

Over the last four years, Boston's partial ban seemingly has been well received. Contrary to the dire warnings of opponents, people didn't stop going out to eat, tourists didn't stop visiting, and diners didn't flee Boston in search of more smoker-friendly towns.

Of course, part of the reason the ban didn't provoke much dissension was the policy itself was full of holes. Enforcement was weak. Many restaurants continued to maintain smoking and non- smoking dining sections, even though that was supposedly prohibited. Others simply ignored the law, saying nothing when customers lit up. And since the partial ban only applied to places serving food, bars were awash with smoke.

Meanwhile, over those years there has been a continuing shift in public opinion. More people, including smokers, now buy into the notion that smoking isn't acceptable around non-smokers. In the balancing of interests - smokers' rights versus non-smokers' rights - the tilt is increasingly in favor of non-smokers. The political fallout Menino feared in 1998 no longer seems as worrisome.

Proof? Look at the early reaction to the ban. Instead of protesting, bar owners appear to be acknowledging the inevitable. "It's the way of the world," says Jerry Foley of J.J. Foley's. The Massachusetts Hospitality Association's Alan Eisner still trots out the "stifle overseas tourism" argument, but it sounds forced. The truth is, wherever they have been put in place, bans have not hurt business - some argue, in fact, that they've helped it.

As in 1998, of course, it should be irrelevant that the mayor has now jumped on board in support of a full ban. The health commission supposedly should give his opinion no more consideration that it would any other citizen.

But this is Boston. If Menino says it's time for a ban (and he sticks to his guns,) then it's time for a ban. It's a safe bet the Public Health Commission, independent but following Menino's lead, will soon come to the same conclusion.

Tom Keane writes Wednesdays and Fridays. He can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.

Document bhld000020020928dy9r00016