Dow Jones Interactive

EDITORIAL
OP-ED; Cambridge dissents from smoking ban
Thomas M. Keane Jr.

01/15/2003
Boston Herald
All Editions
027
(Copyright 2003)

Over the last few years, Cambridge has seen fit to oppose the Patriot Act, boycott companies doing business with Indonesia and ban the manufacture of chemical weapons. But when it comes time to doing something meaningful - actually saving lives instead of engaging in mostly empty posturing - the city demurs.

While other nearby communities (including Boston) have adopted rules largely banning smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places, Cambridge has been a laggard. And embarrassingly enough, it looks to remain that way: The City Council meets later today to consider a smoking ban. And right now, it appears the measure will fail.

The Centers for Disease Control says smoking is the nation's most important public health issue. Active smoking is the leading cause of death: one in five deaths or 400,000 annually. And the third leading cause of death is passive smoking, claiming 53,000 annually.

All of this has led to a variety of efforts to limit and discourage smoking, including lawsuits against tobacco companies, restrictions on sales to minors and taxes on cigarettes themselves.

It has also led to a change in the social dynamic.

As long as smoking was simply seen as an annoyance to nonsmokers - smarting eyes, smelly clothes and hacking cough - smoking was regarded as a right, something that nonsmokers simply had to tolerate. But as evidence grew of smoking's effects on health, the tide turned in nonsmokers' favor. The initial steps were hesitant and controversial. San Francisco imposed the first workplace ban in 1983; Congress in 1988 prohibited smoking on airplane flights of two hours or less. Each of these outraged smokers.

Nevertheless, the movement continued. Communities and states increasingly enacted bans on smoking in enclosed public spaces, in workplaces and, to varying degrees, in restaurants and bars.

And it is those restaurants and bars that now represent the last outpost for anti-smoking activists. For at this point, Massachusetts prohibits smoking virtually everywhere else - the exceptions being outside and in one's home. And inevitably, many think, the ban will extend to restaurants and bars.

The reasons are twofold. First, polls now show widespread public support for bans. Nonsmokers - a majority of the population - have become ever more vocal. For a long time, the hospitality industry maintained that if nonsmokers didn't like smoke, then they shouldn't go into places that allowed it. Few buy that argument any more. Nonsmokers want to go where they want and not have to suffer exposure to smoke as the price they pay.

Second, restaurant and bar workers face heightened risks from secondhand smoke. For example, health officials say those workers have a 50 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer than other employees. Unions, in particular, have become increasingly vociferous in demanding that government provide some protection.

And the counter-arguments? The hospitality industry worries that prohibiting smoking will hurt business. Some fear local bans will drive customers across borders, into neighboring communities. Others claim that smoking and drinking are inextricably linked. Ban smoking, runs the argument, and people will stop drinking.

Cities, towns and states (notably California) that have enacted complete bans have found no evidence of either effect, by the way. Still, the first concern - loss of business to nearby towns - led to the creation of a coalition calling itself Clean Air Works. Founded by health commissioners from Boston and Cambridge, CAW's idea was to coordinate the enactment of bans throughout the metropolitan region.

CAW has largely realized its goal. Statewide, 70 municipalities have smoking bans. Boston's was the most important piece. Backed by Mayor Thomas Menino, it goes into effect May 5. Brookline and Braintree already have bans in place, while Framingham and Saugus have bans coming into place shortly. Somerville, Chelsea and Everett are close to imposing their own. Other smaller towns also have prohibitions.

The biggest missing piece of the puzzle? Cambridge.

Cambridge has always dragged its feet on smoking. Its current rules are vastly weaker than the old regulations of most surrounding cities and towns. And Cambridge's mayor, Michael Sullivan, has expressed contempt for Boston's ban, saying he doubts the city will enforce it (Boston's health officials vociferously disagree).

At this point, four of nine Cambridge councilors have said they will support a ban. Three have voiced opposition and two - Anthony Galluccio and Denise Simmons - are supposedly undecided (neither would return calls).

Today's council meeting will pose an interesting challenge to Cambridge. The weight of medical evidence, as well public sentiment, supports a ban. If it rejects the proposed ordinance, the council - which takes pride in Cambridge's progressive reputation - puts itself on a course that becomes little more than a race to the bottom.

Tom Keane can be reached at tom@tomkeane.com.