News Articles 
California Smoke Free Bars

**-------------------------------------------------------

Los Angeles County Helps Bars Go Smoke-Free

BW (Business Wire)
Date: Tue, Dec 30, 1997
Los Angeles County Helps Bars Go Smoke-Free

Lifestyle Editors/Health & Medical Writers

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 30, 1997--New Year's
Day 1998 will mark the first day that gaming clubs, bars and taverns are
no longer exempt from AB 13, California's Law for a Smokefree Workplace.

While advocates for restaurant and bar workers are looking forward to the
day when these employees will enjoy the same freedom from secondhand smoke
that all the state's other workers have had since Jan. 1, 1995, some bar
owners and managers may need help to make sure the transition to a
smoke-free establishment is a smooth one.

The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services is offering
assistance to bars, taverns and gaming clubs in order to help them
implement the law.

"The first thing to do is post the 'No Smoking' signs and remove the
ashtrays," suggested the department's acting health officer, Dr. Jonathan
Fielding. "The next thing to do is train employees on how to politely
remind customers that state law now prohibits smoking inside."

The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Tobacco Education
Program has mailed Smoke-Free Bar Resource Kits to the 7,000
establishments in the county with an on-premises liquor license. The kits
are designed to provide owners and managers with the resources they need
for a smooth transition.

The kits include clear explanations of the law, tips for implementing it,
and resources for more information and assistance, as well as "No Smoking"
signage, and patron-friendly reminders like bar napkins and table tents.

On Jan. 1, 1998, bars, taverns and gaming clubs are required to post "No
Smoking" signs at all entrances, and must prohibit smoking in any enclosed
space. The law carries penalties of $100 for the first violation, $200
for the second violation within one year, and $500 for each subsequent
violation within one year.

After the third violation, cases are referred to the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), where penalties
may go as high as $7,000 per violation. The law does not prohibit smoking
in outdoor areas and patios.

A recent study found that 76 percent of California bargoers are bothered
by secondhand smoke. That same study found that 64 percent of
Californians go to bars, and 75 percent of those bar patrons don't smoke.

"There's no question that secondhand smoke causes illness and death. At
some bars, employees are breathing in the equivalent of a pack of
cigarettes every shift," said Fielding. "We're glad that these workers
are finally protected from the devastating effects of secondhand smoke."

For more information on complying with AB 13, business owners and managers
can contact the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services at
800/427-8700 or the California Smoke-Free Bars Program at 800/622-2829.

CONTACT: Durazo Communications, Los Angeles
Dan Durazo, 213/239-6555 ext. 206

**---------------------------------------------------------

Eleventh-Hour Effort to Delay Smokefree Bars Fails; Temporary Restraining
Order Denied

BW (Business Wire)
Date: Tue, Dec 30, 1997
Business Editors

SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 30, 1997--Presented with an
11th-hour attempt to delay employee health protections from secondhand
smoke, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Joe Gray Tuesday denied a request
for a temporary restraining order to delay implementation of smokefree
bars and gaming clubs in California.

Smokefree bars and gaming clubs are still set to go into effect Jan. 1, 1998.

The request for the temporary restraining order was brought by bar owners
in San Joaquin County who wish to maintain smoking in their
establishments. After denying the request, the judge set a Jan. 15
hearing date to allow the bar owners to present more information.

"This is great news since bar employees deserve healthy, smokefree
workplaces, just like other workers," said Chair of the Board Michael
Gardner of the American Lung Association of California. "Being exposed to
secondhand smoke should not be a condition for employment."

Along with hundreds of bars that have already gone smokefree, employees
and businesses in California are celebrating history as the first state in
the country to implement smokefree bars and gaming clubs.

Contrary to tobacco industry assertions, there is no evidence that
creating safe, smokefree work environments will hurt business. Comparing
the first six months of California restaurant revenues in 1994 to the
first six months of 1995, when the first phase of the smokefree workplace
act went into effect, sales increased by 4.3 percent.

Although opponents of the smokefree workplace law claim it will make bars
lose business, the facts suggest the opposite. Eighty-two percent of
California's adults don't smoke. A recent statewide opinion survey shows
that 60 percent of bar patrons would prefer smokefree bars and another 17
percent would not be affected by the change. Statewide opinion surveys
show that most smokers prefer to eat in smokefree environments.

In addition, employers who allow smoking in their establishments may risk
future Workers Compensation claims by continuing to expose their employees
to a known health hazard, as evidenced by an employee of a Marin County
restaurant and bar that allowed smoking, who received an $85,000
settlement in 1990 for such a claim.

Opponents of the state's successful smokefree workplace law, lead by the
tobacco industry, say that denying smokers the right to light up in a bar
is going too far, since, as they indicate, bars are places where adults
meet to socialize. In reality, nearly 90 percent of the 35,596
establishments which this law will affect are restaurants where people of
all ages dine.

According to the Department of Health Services, during an eight-hour
shift, a bar worker inhales secondhand smoke that is equivalent to
actively smoking nearly a pack of cigarettes. Not surprisingly, bar and
tavern employees have higher rates of lung cancer than almost all other
occupations, including fire fighters and miners.

A recent study published by the Journal of the American Medical
Association shows that California's waitresses die from higher rates of
lung and heart disease than any other female occupational group. They
have four times the expected lung cancer mortality and 2-1/2 times the
expected heart disease mortality rate. This increased death rate is
directly attributable to having to work day after day in smoke-filled
rooms.

Bars, taverns and gaming clubs were supposed to go smokefree in January
1997 under the California Smokefree Workplace Act of 1994.

But in 1996, Assembly Bill 3037 was enacted, which delayed implementation
until Jan. 1, 1998. A number of other bills were introduced in 1997 to
further delay implementation, including Assembly Bill 869 (defeated in
April 1997) which would have delayed implementation until January 2001, or
until OSHA sets a nationwide standard for clean indoor air, for which it
has no immediate plans to do. This was followed by AB 297 and SB 137,
containing similar language.

"The public saw through these tobacco industry attempts to prevent all
employees from being exposed to secondhand smoke," said Gardner. "It has
been proven time and again that smokefree workplaces, including bars, are
good for business and good for health," he said.

CONTACT: American Lung Association of California
Andrew Weisser, 818.703.6444

or
American Lung Association, 800/LUNG-USA

**---------------------------------------------------------

California Snuffs Out Smoking in Bars, Clubs

RTos (Reuters Online Service)
Date: Wed, Dec 31, 1997 Copyright 1997 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.
By Michael Miller

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - At the start of the New Year, California will
become the first U.S. state in which all bars, clubs and casinos are
smoke-free. Or will it?

Although a law banning smoking in such establishments goes into effect on
January 1, many people seriously doubt that bartenders will interrupt the
singing of Auld Lang Syne at midnight to order their patrons to snuff out
their cigarettes and cigars.

"It's a law that's impossible to enforce," said state Assemblyman Brett
Granlund, a diehard smoker and Republican who represents the desert area of
Yucaipa, east of Los Angeles.

It is also a law that has inspired heated conversations in bars and
gambling clubs across the country's most populous state.

While many non-smokers look forward to bars without the familiar blue
tobacco haze choking their lungs, smokers are fuming that one of their last
bastion of lighting up is being taken away from them.

"It's unconstitutional. They're trying to run my life for me, telling me
what I can and can't do and where I can and can't do it," said Arnie
Wilson, a regular at Sloppy Joe's in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb.

Wilson, like other bar patrons throughout the state, say they intend to
keep on puffing while downing their beers, wines and spirits, and many bar
owners, fearing a sharp drop in business, say they intend to let them.

"What am I going to do? I would say at least three-quarters of the people
in here are smokers. So do I lose all that trade by telling them they can't
smoke, or do I risk being fined? I think I'll just let them smoke," said
one bar owner in West Los Angeles who spoke on condition of anonymity in
case his name goes on the authorities' "must prosecute" list.

Under the law it is the bar owner, and not the smoker, who can be punished,
with fines of $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and $500 for
the third, with subsequent violations at up to $7,000 each.

With those kinds of fines, California's Health Department is hoping that
eventually the great majority of bar owners and patrons will comply with
the new law.

A department spokeswoman pointed out there has been almost universal
compliance with the statewide ban on smoking in restaurants that took
effect in 1995.

"People will get used to it. They'll just go outside and smoke," she said.

The smoking ban in bars and casinos stems from California's indoor
workplace smoking prohibition which started in 1994.

The law, which has become part of the state's labor code, is intended to
protect employees in enclosed workplaces. It also called on the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration to establish standards for
safe levels of tobacco smoke exposure.

Cal/OSHA, as the agency is known, has not attempted to establish such
levels, saying it would be impossible, and in a bid to have the ban in bars
and casino's overturned, a number of San Francisco area gambling clubs are
suing the agency.

They want Cal/OSHA to come up with the necessary safety standards and are
asking for a moratorium on the law for at least two years. The case goes to
court on January 8.

Attorney Gary Vannelli, who represents Artichoke Joe's Casino in the San
Francisco suburb of San Bruno, said Cal/OSHA had failed to meet the
requirements of the original bill.

"They didn't do anything. They didn't even try. They were given two to
three years to come up with a safety standard and they didn't even lift a
finger," he said.

Granlund, who describes himself as the California legislature's "most
notorious smoker," told Reuters his personal habit was only part of the
reason he was against the ban. "It's about jobs. It's about the right of
people to run their own businesses."

**---------------------------------------------------------

California snuffs out smoking in bars
Law in effect as of Jan. 1, but skeptics wonder about enforcement

MSNBC
December 31, 1997
MSNBC NEWS SERVICES

LOS ANGELES - At the start of the New Year, California by law will become
the first state in which all bars, clubs and card rooms are smoke-free. Or
will it? Many people doubt that bartenders - whose health the law is
intended to protect - will interrupt the singing of Auld Lang Syne at
midnight to order their patrons to snuff out their cigarettes and cigars.


A JUDGE ON Tuesday refused to stop California from becoming the first state
in the nation to ban smoking in most bars and gambling casinos.

Judge Joe Gray rejected a request for a temporary restraining order filed
by a group of bar owners and others to stop the ban from taking effect on
Thursday.

Bar owners argued that the ban will violate equal protection rights
guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. Attorneys for the state
said there was no merit to the challenge.

Gray set a Jan. 15 hearing to hear further arguments in the case over a law
that was written to protect the health of bar employees, not the customers
themselves.

SMOKERS FUMING

State Assemblyman Brett Granlund, R-Yucaipa and a smoker, told NBC's
"Today" show host Matt Lauer that the issue is "about jobs. It's about the
right of people to run their own businesses."

And he claimed the law came about by "accident" because California's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration didn't come up with
ventilation standards to protect bar employees from smoke.

Granlund predicted the law would prove unenforceable, partly because it
does not require a bar employee or owner to eject a smoking patron.

Tom Rivard of San Francisco's Public Health Department acknowledged that,
but added inspectors would be out enforcing the ban by asking bartenders to
remove ashtrays.

Asked about protecting employees' health, Granlund noted that exposure to
smoke in some workplaces can't be avoided, such as smoke from cooking,
which he claimed creates "a lot more danger" than cigarette smoke.

The law has also inspired heated conversations in bars and gambling clubs
in the country's most populous state.

While many non-smokers look forward to bars without the familiar blue
tobacco haze, smokers are fuming that one of the last places they can light
up is being taken away from them.

"It's unconstitutional. They're trying to run my life for me, telling me
what I can and can't do and where I can and can't do it," said Arnie
Wilson, a regular at Sloppy Joe's in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb.

Wilson, like other bar patrons in the state, intends to keep on puffing
while downing his favorite drink.

'I'LL JUST LET THEM SMOKE'

Rivard contended that bar owners would welcome the law since 83 percent of
Californians don't smoke and thus tend to patronize nonsmoking bars.

But many bar owners don't see it that way and, fearing a sharp drop in
business, say they intend to let people smoke.

"What am I going to do? I would say at least three-quarters of the people
in here are smokers. So do I lose all that trade by telling them they can't
smoke, or do I risk being fined? I think I'll just let them smoke," said
one bar owner in West Los Angeles who would not give his name in case it
went on the authorities' "must prosecute" list.

Under the law it is the bar owner, and not the smoker, who can be punished,
with fines of $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and $500 for
the third, with subsequent violations at up to $7,000 each.

With those kinds of fines, California's Health Department hopes that most
bar owners and patrons will eventually comply with the new law.

A department spokeswoman pointed out there has been almost universal
compliance with the statewide ban on smoking in restaurants that took
effect in 1995.

"People will get used to it. They'll just go outside and smoke," she said.

LAWSUIT OVER STANDARDS

The smoking ban stems from California's indoor workplace smoking
prohibition that started in 1994.

In order to get their legislation passed, backers of the bill agreed to a
compromise that would exempt bars and clubs for two years. The exemption
was extended in 1996 for 12 months but a bid to further extend it failed
earlier this year.

The law, which has become part of the state's labor code, is intended to
protect employees in enclosed workplaces. It also called on the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration to establish standards for
safe levels of tobacco smoke exposure.

Cal/OSHA, as the agency is known, has not attempted to establish such
levels, saying it would be impossible, and in a bid to have the ban in bars
and card rooms overturned, a number of San Francisco area gambling clubs
are suing the agency.

They want Cal/OSHA to come up with the necessary safety standards and are
asking for a moratorium on the law for at least two years. The case goes to
court on Jan. 8.

Attorney Gary Vannelli, who represents Artichoke Joe's Casino in the San
Francisco suburb of San Bruno, said Cal/OSHA had failed to meet the
requirements of the original bill.

"They didn't do anything. They didn't even try. They were given two to
three years to come up with a safety standard and they didn't even lift a
finger," he said.

LAW MEANT FOR EMPLOYEES

Granlund, who describes himself as the California legislature's "most
notorious smoker," said his personal habit was only part of the reason he
was against the ban.

The law, he said, was "sloppily written" and full of loopholes. "It doesn't
even define what an enclosed workplace is. If a bar owner has the door
open, or a window open, is that still enclosed?" Granlund said.

In addition, because the law comes under the labor code, authorities could
not accept complaints from patrons that it was being violated by bars, he
said.

"They can only take complaints from employees. That's what the law is for;
it is intended to protect employees, not customers," Granlund said.

Watch NBC NEWS@ ISSUE at 3 P.M. ET on MSNBC Cable for a discussion of
California's new smoking ban.

Vesuvios, a popular San Francisco bar, reminds patrons that smoking in
California bars will be illegal as of Jan. 1.



UNCONSTITUTIONAL? NBC's Mike Boettcher reports California's nonsmoking law
is stoking emotional fires

Bar owner Cameron Palmer of Half Moon Bay, Calif., believes he's found a
way around California's new law, having bought this bus for smoking
customers.

Is California's new law fair?
--Yes. The health of employees is important regardless of where they work.
--No. It unfairly punishes bar owners who'll lose business.
--Of course not, but laws taking away personal rights are an unstoppable trend.

Vote to see results

The Associated Press and Reuter contributed to this report.

**---------------------------------------------------------

California Set to Enforce Ban in Almost All Public Places

The New York Times
December 31, 1997
By DON TERRY

LOS ANGELES -- In the biggest assault yet on cigarette smoking in the
United States, bars, casinos and nightclubs across California will be
forced to ban smoking at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, as part of a
virtual ban on indoor smoking in public places in the nation's most
populous state.

The policy, part of a 1994 state labor law designed to protect the health
of employees like bartenders, waitresses and bellhops from the risks of
secondhand smoke, extends the state's no-smoking policy to bars and clubs
from mountain ski resorts to beach-side cafes and every watering hole in
between.

Critics of the law and smoking advocates say the law is Draconian and
unenforceable and that bars are unlikely to keep patrons from smoking.

They also say it will be financially disastrous for bars and nightclubs.

But anti-tobacco forces say the fines included in the law will insure it
will be enforced and experts say that it signals a new battleground in the
war over smoking.

"I think this bar ban going into force is the most important thing
happening in tobacco in the country today," said Stanton Glantz, a
professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco.

"When this happens in the biggest, most diverse state in the country and
the sky doesn't fall, it will spread across the country."

California is the first state to so thoroughly restrict smoking.

Since 1995, there has been a ban on smoking in restaurants without bars,
manufacturing plants, offices and other enclosed work places. But an
exemption was granted to bars and nightclubs in the hope that sophisticated
ventilation systems could be developed to reduce the health risks.

But California officials say that the technology has not been developed and
there is no acceptable level of secondhand smoke indoors.

"What you've got in California again is Prohibition," said Thomas Humber,
president of the National Smokers Alliance, a pro-smoking group that
receives some of its money from the tobacco industry.

Humber said there was already a campaign to get the California legislature
to repeal the ban next year. "Believe me," he said, "we'll be as active as
any group can be to urge repeal."

Superior Court Judge Joe Gray rejected a request on Tuesday night for a
temporary restraining order against the ban, filed in Sacramento, Calif.,
by a group of bar owners and others who say the law is unconstitutional.
Gray scheduled a Jan. 15 hearing for further arguments.

Humber said that a few communities in California had enacted similar
complete smoking bans but that he was not aware of such bans in other
states.

Brett Granlund, a Republican state assemblyman who opposes the ban, said
repealing the law would be very difficult. "I'm afraid it's going to be the
law of the land," he said.

Granlund, who is trying to quit a two-pack-a-day smoking habit, said the
law clearly infringed on the rights of business owners to operate the way
they see fit. "Smokers on airplanes and in restaurants have voluntarily
complied with smoking restrictions when the law has been reasonable,"
Granlund said. "But this law is unreasonable. You're going to have to hire
an army to enforce it."

There is talk of setting up "smoke-easy's" and of civil disobedience
campaigns by smokers and bar owners.

Banning bar smoking, opponents say, will not only rob customers of an
otherwise lawful pleasure, it will hurt owners because smokers will stop
going to bars. Forrest Miller, a bartender at the Studio Lounge in
Hollywood, said that about 100 people have already signed a petition he
keeps behind the bar seeking a repeal of the law.

'I've been a bartender for 35 years, and they're trying to destroy my
business," said Miller, 53. "I'm not a smoker and I'm healthy as a horse."

Some people have even suggested that bars should borrow from the tactics of
civil rights and anti-war protesters of the 1960s and hold smoke-ins.

But even if the other bar owners and managers go along with the ban, said
Brad McAllen, a 50-year-old bar manager, it would probably be half-hearted
compliance. "We'll post a no-smoking sign," he said, "but I can't ask my
bartenders to be cigarette police."

Three years ago, when smoking in restaurants was banned in California,
there were plenty of dire predictions. But recent studies show no drop in
business at bars that already prohibit smoking, said Colleen Stevens of the
State Health Department's tobacco control section.

Ms. Stevens said there are 850,000 people who work in the state's
hospitality industry. "Until now, they were the only workers in California
not protected in mass against second-hand smoke," she said.

"This is a worker health issue."

Enforcing the ban will be up to local city and county governments. In most
parts of the state, if a business owner or manager sees a customer smoking
they are required to ask the patron to put it out. But, because of concerns
for their safety, employees are not required to evict a patron who refuses.

If someone files a complaint with their local health department. for
example, the bar owner could be fined $100 fine for the first offense, $200
for the second and up to $7,000 by the fourth.

There are still some exemptions to the law, such as bars with no employees
-- no bartender, no one to sweep up or to bounce a drunk. But there are not
many of those places in California. The state law does not ban smoking at
arenas and stadiums outdoors, but some local governments do have outdoor
restrictions.

Kimberly Belshe, the head of California's Health Services Department, said
she expects overwhelming compliance with the smoking ban.

"It will probably take some time," Ms. Belshe said, "but it will be as
commonplace for smokers to step outside the bar to have a smoke as telling
their woes to the bartender."

Robert Taylor, a 28-year-old smoker, who installs telephone systems, was
sipping on a beer and puffing on a Winston the other day at Steve
Boardner's Bar & Grill, one of the oldest in Hollywood. He said he did not
like the law, but it would not make him stop going to bars.

"I was back in Chicago," he said, "and people were laughing. They asked me,
'So, do you need to smuggle some cigarettes back?"'

**---------------------------------------------------------

THE GREAT CALIFORNIA SMOKEOUT
Smokers, bar owners lament new law, and some fear loss of business.

LA Times
December 31, 1997
By JACQUELINE FOX

BURBANK To nonsmokers, it means a breath of fresh air. But to many of the
city's bar owners and their smoking patrons, a state law scheduled to take
effect first thing Thursday morning is just one big drag.

The law is part two of a 1994 bill restricting smoking in the workplace.
Restaurants have already been complying, but on New Year's Day, the law
will be expanded to make California the first state in the nation to ban
smoking in enclosed bars, taverns and casinos.

The law is intended to protect employees who work in the state's 30,700
restaurants with liquor licenses and its roughly 3,500 stand-alone bars
from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Proprietors will be required to post "no smoking" signs outside all
entrances and ask patrons to stamp out their cigarettes or leave.

Should a complaint be filed against an establishment for noncompliance, the
onus would be on the proprietor, not the customer.

Fines are $100 for first-time complaints, $200 for the second complaint,
and $500 for the third, as well as a possible referral to the California
Occupational Health and Safety Administration, which may impose fines up to
$7,000.

Many proprietors are fuming over the prospect of losing customers.

They fear their regulars who smoke will either stay at home or frequent
larger establishments with outdoor patios, where smoking will still be
legal.

"This is ridiculous," said Dodie Bryce, co-owner of the Blue Room on San
Fernando Road. "A lot of my customers say they are just going to stay home
and smoke. I don't think it's right for them to do this to us.

This business has supported my family since the 1950s."

Bryce said she's thinking of putting in an outdoor patio just to give her
customers a place to go.

"People who go out to the alley to smoke will just bring police around, who
will say they are loitering, which is a whole other fiasco altogether,"
Bryce said.

Rusty Padderson, a Blue Room patron for more than 15 years, said he plans
to abide by the law, but has a plan for doing that and still get his
tobacco fix.

"I think the new law is ludicrous," Padderson said. "But, I'll just do like
my friends here and bring in a spittoon and chew a little Copenhagen"
chewing tobacco.

Burbank resident Janet Heather, on the other hand, said she is looking
forward to going into her favorite hangout without having to battle the
smoke.

"My clothes smell like smoke for a week after leaving a bar," Heather said.
"I can't wait for the law to go into effect."

Because cigar bars and tobacco shops are excluded from the law, cigar
smokers who never frequented them before may begin to in 1998.

That, coupled with the possibility of cigarette smokers crossing over to
cigars, may spell more business for the specialty establishments.

"We could definitely see an increase in business because of the new law,"
said Gilbert Eng, general manager at Havana Studios, a cigar bar on Olive
Avenue in Burbank. "Right off the bat, the law doesn't really affect us,
but I could see how it could help boost our sales."

Enforcement of the new law will be handled by both the Burbank Police
Department and the city's licensing bureau, said Police Chief Dave Newsham.
But don't expect to see Burbank's finest scouring the bars looking for
violators.

"We are not going to go in these places and examine them for smokers,"
Newsham said. "We don't have the resources for that. But we will, however,
respond to the reports filed by patrons."

END BURBANK STORY

Patty Merian doesn't smoke. But she has worked as a bartender at The Mix,
formerly Lady Janes, on Honolulu Avenue in Montrose for the last 3 1/2
years. She said she thinks smokers are being targeted unfairly.

"Smoking isn't against the law," Merian said. "So you should be allowed to
smoke in bars. It's just so irritating. If it bothered me, I wouldn't do
bartending."

"The customers are our kings and queens," said Andy Avila, a nonsmoker and
owner of the Gold Rail in Glendale. "If I have to chase everyone out, who
am I going to have left?"

But nonsmokers, such as Phil Cole, a Glendale resident who frequents The
Mix, said he thinks the law is long overdue.

"I enjoy clean air," Cole said. "It's time for these people who smoke to
slow down."

USE TRANS. GRAPH ON CIGAR BARS FROM ABOVE HERE.

"As a cigar smoker, I feel the new law is somewhat of a blow to my rights,
because I like to go out and smoke a cigar in bars myself," said Tony
Falcaro, owner of Smoke-A Cigar Club on Brand Boulevard in Glendale. "But
obviously, from a business perspective, I'm in good shape to see a lot of
increases in business."

Enforcement of the law in Glendale will be co-monitored by the Police
Department and the Planning Division, said Sgt. Rick Young.

"If we get a complaint, we will look into it, but we won't be patrolling
bars to check up on people," Young said. "If we are in a bar, however, for
another reason and we observe a smoker, I'm sure the officers would take
action at that point."

In La Crescenta and the foothill areas, the law will be enforced by the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department. But according to one officer in the La
Crescenta division, no formal protocol has been decided on how to enforce
the law.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

As of Jan. 1, 1998, smoking is banned in California bars, taverns and casinos.

Proprietors must post no smoking signs outside all entrances.

Fine for first complaint: $100

Second complaint: $200

Third complaint: $500, plus a referral to the California Occupational
Health and Safety Administration, which may impose fines up to $7,000.

WHERE YOU CAN STILL LIGHT UP

* Bars and casinos on Indian land

* Bars and restaurants that are owner-operated and have no employees

* Bars and other establishments not enclosed by four walls and a ceiling

* Patios outside bars, restaurants and other workplaces

* Designated areas in hotel lobbies

* Hotel rooms set aside for smokers

* Private smoking lounges attached to tobacco retailers

* Tobacco shops

* Truck cabs or tractors, when a nonsmoking employee is not present

* Private residences, except when used as a licensed child care facility

* Some buildings on federal land, such as clubs on military bases

* Theatrical production and movie sets when smoking is part of the production

* Warehouses larger than 100,000 square feet, with fewer than 20 employees

* Medical research or treatment facilities where smoking is part of the
research

* Businesses with five or fewer employees where all employees consent,
children are prohibited, and the building is vented (does not apply to bars)

* Patient smoking areas of long-term health care facilities for the Los
Angeles County Health Services Department.

**---------------------------------------------------------

Smoke-Filled Saloons Are Facing Last Gasp Tonight
Laws: Ban on lighting up in bars, nightclubs, casinos and hotel lobbies
takes effect with new year. Some look forward to it; others decry loss of
rights.

LA Times
December 31, 1997
By ROB SELNA, Special to The Times

An age-old custom will end Jan. 1: Smoking in bars will be illegal.

Some Ventura County bar employees--whose health the state law is designed
to protect--say they look forward to smoke-free clothing and the chance to
woo customers with a new drawing card: clean air.

But others bemoan the loss of a traditional barroom ambience and criticize
the law as meddlesome.

"This law is destroying a piece of American culture," said Hannah Adams, a
bartender at the Red Cove Lounge in Ventura. "What would J.D. Salinger or
Hunter S. Thompson do in a bar without cigarettes?"

The ban is the latest phase of a 3-year-old law that prohibits smoking in
enclosed workplaces. In 1994, the law banned smoking in most businesses,
including restaurants, with an exemption for bars, nightclubs, casinos and
hotel lobbies that ends today.

The intent is to protect employees, as well as customers, from the health
effects of secondhand smoke. But many of those employees are critical of
the law.

"The bottom line is that the individual restaurant owner should be able to
decide," said Tom Sullins, a bartender for 26 years, now at Tony's Steak
and Seafood on East Thompson Boulevard in Ventura. "All bartenders care
about is legal tender--nothing else."

Adams at the Red Cove, a 47-year-old bar and pool joint on Main Street,
said waitresses and bartenders who wish to avoid smoke can easily find work
at nonsmoking establishments, and know the risks when they work in a
smoking environment. She expressed concern for citizens' rights.

The ban "is chipping away at our rights and making us easier to control,"
said Adams, a smoker. "Before you know it, they'll say smoking at home is
attempted murder on your kids."

Red Cove customer Thomas Wise said he has little sympathy for bar employees.

"Every job has occupational hazards," said Wise, 33. "I'm a marine
mechanic, and I took the job knowing the risks."

At the Alamo in Newbury Park, bartender and waitress Soroya Rizzie said she
agrees with the restaurant smoking ban, but thinks bars should be exempt.

"If smoking bothered me, this is not the job I would have," said Rizzie.
"This is smokers' territory. . . . Where people come to drink, the majority
of them smoke."

Many patrons at local bars agreed with Rizzie. "Part of the relaxation
after work is having a smoke and a drink," said Sharri Ross, while puffing
away at the Alamo. Ross, 42, who has smoked for 25 years, said she will go
to bars less often because of the ban.

However, there also are bar customers, employees and managers who eagerly
await smoke-free saloons.

"I'm ecstatic," said Michelle Brutaco, a nonsmoking waitress at Cisco's
Mexican restaurant in Westlake Village. "I'm not worried about losing tips.
People won't go away. We have longtime customers."

Brutaco said the best thing about the ban is that she will no longer have
to peel off smoky clothes every morning before going to bed.

Some lounge managers are trying to use the new law to their advantage.
Charles Bayer, manager at Capistrano's in Oxnard, said the bar took part in
a nonsmoking night sponsored by the American Lung Assn. in early December,
to appeal to nonsmoking patrons.

"We're looking at getting back the customers who decided long ago that they
couldn't handle the smoke," Bayer said.

A few local watering holes have a patio or deck where they will be able to
send those in need of a nicotine fix without violating the law.

"We're lucky because we can just fix up the patio area and put some tables
and chairs out there," said Kazan Schmidt, manager of the Sans Souci
Cocktail Lounge on Chestnut Street in Ventura. "But we will comply with the
law."

How the law will be enforced is still unclear. The law directs local
authorities to designate an agency in each city or county to oversee the
new rules. It names the police, sheriff's department or environmental
health department as potential enforcement agencies.

Although fines of up to $7,000 may be levied on repeat violators, officials
at most city and county agencies said they do not have a new inspection or
enforcement plan to deal with the impending law.

"I'm sure we will be enforcing it because we have been doing it for
restaurants, but I have not received any information on it," said Ventura
Code Enforcement Officer Sherry Jeffreys. She also said she is limited in
her ability to enforce the law.

"Someone has to call me and complain and then co-sign the citation because
we have to have an eyewitness, so it's hard to enforce, " Jeffreys said.

Correspondents Lisa Fernandez and Kimberly Lisagor contributed to this story.

**---------------------------------------------------------

Smoke ban in taverns opposed
Bar workers fear law might jeopardize jobs

San Diego Union-Tribune
December 30, 1997
Frank Green STAFF WRITER 30-Dec-1997 Tuesday

Bartenders and waitresses don't mind getting smoke in their eyes if it
protects their jobs, a local union asserted yesterday in announcing its
opposition to a new statewide smoking ban in bars and casinos.

Local 30 of the San Diego Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union
(HERE) called a morning news conference in Hillcrest to urge state
legislators to repeal the newest provision of the Californians Smoke -Free
Workplace law because it will cut into tips -- and possibly the work time
-- of its 4,000 members.

"Owners of drinking establishments tell me that if business drops by just 5
percent, they will be forced to shorten shifts and lay off employees," said
Jef Eatchel, HERE secretary-treasurer. "My members feel that the most
important issue in this whole debate is protecting their jobs." The
anti-smoking law, which goes into effect Thursday, calls for fines of up to
$500 per violation for bar and casino owners who refuse to tell smokers who
light up in their establishments to butt out. Ultimately Cal-OSHA could
slap a $70,000 penalty on a proprietor for willful noncompliance. (Smoking
has been banned since 1995 in restaurants and most indoor workplaces.) HERE
said one alternative to the smoking ban would be to require bar operators
to post warning signs at the entrance and elsewhere if smoking is allowed.

"If customers don't like it, they can go to another restaurant," Eatchel said.

Prospective bartenders and waitresses at the same establishments could
likewise be informed that they would be inhaling plenty of secondhand smoke
on the job.

Eatchel said he fears that HERE members will be called upon to enforce the
law in the barroom, which could provoke violent encounters with militant
smokers.

"What happens if (the smoker) says `So what?' " Eatchel asked. "Do you call
the cops? Do you throw him out?" Eatchel equated the dangers faced by bar
and casino workers to those encountered by coal miners and nuclear-power
plant workers.

Anti-smoking organizations yesterday said HERE was relying on scare tactics
devised by the tobacco industry to misinform its members.

Debra Kelley, vice president of the American Lung Association of San Diego
and Imperial Counties, said 61 communities in California have already
banned smoking in bars and restaurants with no adverse economic effects on
the businesses.

"We shouldn't be asking workers to die for their jobs," said Kelley,
referring to studies that indicate that the average bar employee breathes
the equivalent in secondhand smoke during an eight-hour shift to puffing on
a pack of cigarettes.

A recent telephone survey of 1,374 county residents -- including 293
smokers -- would seem to refute the idea that prohibitions on tobacco in
bars and diners eat away at business.

The survey, which was sponsored by the San Diego County Health and Human
Services Agency, found that 89.8 percent of respondents would be more
likely to visit bars because of the law, or that the law would make no
difference in their decision. And 79.5 percent of those polled said that it
was "very important" for workplaces to be smoke-free.

But don't tell that to Frank Dick, a bartender at Trattoria Portobello who
attended yesterday's news conference.

"A good percentage of my customers come in to smoke a cigar and have a
couple of cocktails," Dick said. "That business is going to be gone."

**---------------------------------------------------------

Opinions fill the air on bars, smoke

San Diego Union-Tribune
December 30, 1997
MARY CURRAN-DOWNEY MARY CURRAN-DOWNEY can be reached at (760) 752-6739 or
by e-mail at mary.curran-downey@uniontrib.com 30-Dec-1997 Tuesday

Can't we all just get along? Not, it seems, when the subject is smoking.

Starting Thursday, you won't be able to smoke in bars. I think it's a good
law, my colleague Logan Jenkins doesn't. We've been writing about the law,
and so have you. You have also called and e-mailed like crazy, proving that
there is very little middle ground on this issue. You either like the ban
or you think it stinks.

But from Solana Beach to Ocean Beach, you had opinions: Bud from Poway says
he's also ready to return to establishments he used to avoid because of the
smoke.

Mark from Ocean Beach said he was also supportive of the new law, but
warned that bars will be like office buildings: "Outside their entrances
will be a gauntlet of smoke, smokers with persecution complexes and butts
on the ground to navigate through." Most of the responses I received were
from folks who were happy that they wouldn't be sucking down secondhand
smoke in the new year. Most, but not all.

One caller accused me of taking the stand I did just to be politically
correct. Sorry, if I was being PC about this, I'd say that I embrace a
diversity of opinions on the subject and am tolerant of your behavior over
which you have no control because you are undoubtedly educationally
challenged around the issue of the addictive nature of the substance thrust
upon you by the powerful tobacco industry and its equally powerful
political support, which until a few years ago, even included the vice
president of the United States.

That's what I would say if I was being politically correct. Otherwise, I'd
just tell you it's a dumb-ass habit and get that cancer stick out of my
face.

Hey, accuse me of being rude, but never, never accuse me of being
politically correct.

Another caller, trying to strike a less strident note, referred me to the
Dec. 20 issue of the British magazine The Economist and an article on
tobacco and tolerance. The article took Americans to task for trying
regulate private behavior with public policy.

"There are a hell of a lot of people who smoke," said the caller. "I gave
it up in 1963. I think we're all entitled to live in this country whether
we smoke or drink. I don't know why we get ourselves completely up in the
air about smoking." The mother of two asthmatic children who says standing
on line to buy movie tickets can be a health hazard to her kids might
disagree. Or the callers who said loved ones died of cancer after years of
smoking.

Quite a few of the more tolerant readers said they used to smoke and
although they chose to give it up, they felt others had the choice to smoke
if they wanted to -- in places like bars that could be clearly marked as
cigarette-friendly establishments. Notice, though, that they don't smoke
anymore. Hmmmm. What does that tell you? One former smoker said businesses
will be damaged by the new law and that workers in bars should just
consider the smoke an occupational hazard, "along with getting hit on, and
cleaning up after drunks." Boy, don't you wish you hung out at that
person's favorite place? Are businesses going to suffer? Let's check back
in six months when the smoke clears a bit and find out. Until then, I still
think the law is a great idea.