Today, supposedly, City Council will vote on a smoking ban, unless there is another tabling of the measure.
The Chronicle editorial board has come out in favor of — you’ll be so surprised — a tougher ban than what Mayor White has proposed.
The Greater Houston Restaurant Association argues that no government-recognized study shows secondhand smoke in restaurants is unhealthy. But there are plenty of studies showing secondhand smoke is hazardous almost anywhere it is encountered. Restaurants do not inhabit a separate, pathology-free universe, nor do they operate outside the laws of physics.
[snip]
The object of regulating air quality is not to accept and set in stone Americans’ high cancer rates. Studies showing that restaurant patrons and workers get cancer at the same high rate as other people are no excuse to tolerate unhealthy air, whether outside or in enclosed spaces where Houstonians spend much of their time.
Studies, studies, studies. Certainly we have learned by now that if someone has an agenda, someone can also find a study to promote that agenda. Yes, there are studies that say secondhand smoke is harmful. There are also studies that say it isn’t. And there are people who have disproved the studies.
But I especially like the editors’ reasoning in the bolded sentence: even if studies don’t show a higher rate of cancer for restaurant workers and customers, there is still no excuse to have unhealthy air, so sayeth the Editors from On High.
How come the editors never once suggested that Houstonians who don’t want to be exposed to secondhand smoke visit the website of the Harris County Health Department, where there is an extensive listing of all smokefree dining places in the Houston area?
Isn’t that a less heavy-handed approach — promoting smokefree establishments — as opposed to forcing every restaurant and bar to bow to the wishes of some (30) anti-smoking advocates? I bet if you put it to a vote of the citizenry, a smoking ban would be tough to pass.
