Very good to hear!!!! I don't care for cigarette smokers. VERY rude!!!!

Duly noted Paul and we shall add it to your growing list of offenders in this small city that you don't like. Smokers, breeders, me. On a happier note - wishing you a happy 2012. Work on the list - and happy you are so glad

Nothing better than leaving the gym and having someone smoking right in front of the entrance. I do wish the area was more than 5 feet from the entrance.

"The council’s justification for the ordinance is that secondhand smoke poses a health risk to all those exposed to it." Nonsense. No one here will be able to produce and defend even a single scientific study showing any real level of harm from the durations and intensity of exposures that anyone would ever normally get outdoors. Even if you fully accept the EPA report as unchallenged fact, when you translate their figures into outdoor exposures you are literally talking about figures like one extra lung cancer for every 300 million people-years of exposure. Seriously.

Have a go at it if you like: find what you think is the best study showing otherwise and I'll show you why you're wrong. Note that I'm asking for STUDIES -- not generalized reports, opinions/statements by "authorities," unreferenced 'fact sheets' from advocates or advocacy groups pushing smoking bans, websites, etc -- actual STUDIES showing such harm from such exposures.

There aren't any.

I'll try to stop back if anyone responds.

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Not only is Michael McFadden right, but, did commenters, Paul and MJ, notice that bars and nightclubs will still allow smoking on their outdoor patios?
The ordinance has nothing to do with people blowing smoke in your face in front of a gym MJ.

If there was scientific proof, Council justification would be particularly illogical.
Council cares about the people exposed, but, doesn’t care about servers or patrons in bars and nightclubs?

The Abbey got their nightclub license so they could continue to have smokers as patrons.
The ordinance will simply mean that smokers will be moving from restaurants throughout West Hollywood, to the bars that serve food.
The restaurants lose.

This ordinance is archaic, simple minded and appears to be a measure, for a few Council members, to appear progressive
when in fact the ordinance is the opposite...conservative and destructive to business and personal freedom.
If 30 to 40 percent of gay men are smokers...well, it also looks pretty anti gay.

All the people who are upset with the new law effective January 1st are the same people who believe the world is flat or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Wanna bet they are all smokers. They puff there smoke while destroying there health but to add insult to injury they cause potential injury to innocent people who are subjected to there second hand smoke, which is worse then the smoke they ingest through a filter. I'm sorry but as a former smoker who kicked the habit on MY OWN 12 years ago, I have no sympathy toward people who smoker. I let have it when I encounter someone who blows smoke my way.

Allegra, one of the "quiet" arguments I heard from people in favor of bans in some places over the years have been explicitly anti-minorities of various types. A McDonald's manager back in the 90s told me that two of the "problems" that their early smoking ban would solve was the tendency of rambunctious high-schoolers hanging out in the afternoons, and the homeless/semi-homeless folks and senior citizens who would come in and hang out and smoke over a cup of coffee for two hours. Before the ban it was hard to deal with those segments without making a stink (so to speak). After the ban those groups largely disappeared.

Same deal with the concourse bans in mass transit areas: hard to control the bums without seeming hard-hearted, but by enforcing the feel-good smoking ban a lot of the "problem" simply went elsewhere.

I don't know if there's been any explicit anti-gay element to bans out there although it wouldn't surprise me to learn they'd been used that way, particularly by employers who might not want gays or blacks in their work force out of sheer bigotry but can't operate on those desires unless they do it under the cloak of "no smokers hired" by simply taking advantage of demographics. Job discrimination against smokers also helps weed out some of the semi-functional alcoholics that might hurt your work force.

Don't think for a second that this "legal" form of discrimination isn't being used with abandon for ulterior motives out there!

- MJM

Paul, we were evidently commenting at about the same time so I did not see yours earlier.

You wrote, "All the people who are upset with the new law effective January 1st are the same people who believe the world is flat or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Wanna bet they are all smokers."

Yes, I like to smoke, but I went through college on a Physics scholarship and went to U of PA on a full fellowship to Wharton for a Ph.D. (not completed). I also built two telescopes ( 6" and 8") from scratch, including optical grinding and perfection. I am aware the world is spherical ... or at least ovoid.

You also wrote, "they cause potential injury to innocent people who are subjected to there second hand smoke, which is worse then the smoke they ingest through a filter."

Paul, I cause "potential" injury to the people around me every time I walk into a room and breathe my toxic and carcinogenic respiratory waste products into their air. In a decently ventilated environment my exhaled breath isn't significantly more harmful to you than my exhaled smoke or even the smoke not "ingested through a filter."

If someone deliberately "blows smoke" at you, then yes, you have a right to be upset. But if YOU have DELIBERATELY entered a smoking-allowed Free Choice establishment with a sign on the door "warning" you of that fact...

... you've got no more complaint than someone walking into a church and being annoyed by hymns.

- MJM

I happen to hate smokers and the smoke that sometimes drifts my way, but I am not sure that it is the right thing to do: Banning what's a legal thing to buy and smoke.
Also, I noticed when they put the ban in place on office buildings, the large groups of smokers forced outside, all gathered in one spot, and walking through that huge cloud of smoke to get in or out of a building seemed worse than if there were a smoker here or there inside the building.

I think we have to share this world with everyone and some unpleasant smells, noises and sights are just part of life and we should learn to tolerate some of them.

Individuals and private business, not big government, should decide on the use of legal tobacco products on their own property. Electronic cigarettes are increasingly popular and accepted now, so see www.ecigwerks.blogspot.com for more.

The Smoking Ordinance specifically ALLOWS a smoking area on restaurant patios (section e.2.) where smokers can be served alcohol, it just doesn't allow food to be served in those areas. Therefore, it appears to be encouraging drunkenness more than restricting smoking. Since food IS allowed to be served in smoking areas at bars, this ordinance has the perverse effect of turning restaurants into bars and bars into restaurants. How's that for thoughtful, common sense legislation? The only thing Council has actually banned is the service of food... in restaurants. If the intent was to force all the restaurants in town to apply for a change in their status to bar/nightclub just so they can serve food to all their patrons, this is the perfect formula. If it is supposed to make the world a better place for nonsmokers, the logic eludes me.

I left west hollywood for the day to do Christmas shopping and saw there was a complete ban on outdoor smoking in Glendale. I don't hate smokers its just when they don't repesct other people. An all out ban? I don't think that is good but there just need more respectful people. Just be curtious! I have friends and neighbors that smoke, but don't let them on the patio because there are people upstairs that have thier windows open. This ordinance is so confusing!

Amazingly, Glendale's law takes a more reasonable approach than WeHo's. It actually states the intent to "strike a reasonable balance between smokers and nonsmokers." They have prohibited smoking more in "publicly owned or controlled" areas rather than putting all the restrictions on private businesses' property as West Hollywood has done - with few restrictions on City owned property. Glendale exempts bars as WeHo does but also allows its restaurants to designate smoking sections without restricting food service or requiring a complicated and costly approval process as our City does. Burbank's ordinance is even less restrictive than Glendale's. It's hard to understand why the City Council of West Hollywood, touted as the epicenter of tolerance, rock 'n roll, nightlife and a free-wheeling lifestyle, with its 95% adult population and dependence on visitors drawn to that lifestyle would choose to impose one of the most restrictive bans. Using reason instead of the rigid ideology of 3 council members could have resulted in an easy to understand, common sense ordinance that worked for everyone... smoke-free patios (there are already many) as a restaurant choice (promoted by the City's Marketing website) and smoke-free patio space separated from smoking areas on most other patios. What a shame Abbe Land, John Heilman and Jeff Prang chose to satisfy their own narrow preferences over a good, well written, simple ordinance giving all their citizens freedom of choice.

Thank you for the education. As per Glendale, I was happy to walk around the streets and not get smoke blowing! It really is an issue that I'm still confused about in West Hollywood where I have lived and love to live here forever, but take a step back when people are smoking, I'm so sensitive to it twenty feet head I get sick from the air.

Again, as a non-smoker, the comment about foreign tourists coming to weho, makes the smoking ban seem even less thought through than it first appeared.
Weho (as Patch recentky reported) relies heavily on the tourism in the city as a major part of its annual budget.
I live across the street from one of our pricy boutique hotels and am constantly passing european tourists who are smoking.
Does this ban apply to hotel guests standing outside the Chamberlain's front door? If it does, that would definitely impact the Hotel's future as word gets out that tourists were ticketed for smoking.
OR IS THIS GOING TO BE A SELECTIVELY ENFORCED LAW?
Any law, good or bad, needs to be enforced even handedly ... Else we will end up living in a tiny monarchy who dispenses justice based on who and how much money a person has ....
WAIT .... I THINK WEHO IS ALREADY THERE! No Fur (for the poor) parking fines (except for the friends of the city) No Smoking?? How and against whom will the city enforce this?

joninla, Good points. Read James Mills' article in this edition, "Restaurants Worry About Smoking Ban Affecting Business" re: enforcement - look forward to people calling the Sheriff on smokers and the more aggressive folks probably attempting citizens' arrests.

Re: even handedness, the City has already answered that question in the way they wrote the Ordinance. It selectively targets only certain businesses and will definitely effect the desire of visitors to continue coming here.

The two private clubs in the City are exempt (of course), the bars are exempt, the hotels pools and general outdoor areas are exempt, the hookah cafes are exempt and any restaurant or coffee house with counter service can allow smoking, too. Also the City didn't ban smoking in the outdoor areas of city owned properties... like the parks or open public space.

With all these places where smoking is not restricted, only restaurants with outdoor table service are targeted to bear the full burden of the politically motivated smoking ban. They may also have a smoking area, but it's a complete joke because if the restaurants create a separated smoking area and provides the rest of the patio for smoke-free dining they are penalized by being prohibited from serving food in the smoking area. Look for more restaurants to try to change their status to bars so they won't be at a disadvantage.

A more reasonable approach could have created more smoke-free areas.

Yesterday I ate a plate of delicious garlic noodles with veggies at East West at the new Pavillions center.With the great weather, I decided to sit outside and eat my meal and two lesbians started smoking. I started fanning my face and looking at them. I was thinking in a couple of days that behavior won't be allowed. Needless to say they got the hint and moved away which I later thanked them upon leaving.

Noted: Paul liked veggie garlic noodles at East West. Two "lesbians" (not women/people) started smoking. Noted: Paul seems to not like lesbians. Paul then performed a fanning performance art piece. They moved. Generously Paul thanked them for doing so but only after he had drawn attention to himself, made their moment unpleasant and worked up a good head of steam. Paul gloated in his own mind, that pretty soon, that "behavior" won't be allowed. On the other hand: Paul could have moved. Paul could have asked them to move. Paul shows us that he is the bully in the schoolyard that gains huge satisfaction in making others more uncomfortable than the situation requires. Rating: Paul gets a D for social graces, an F for calling these women out of their name without knowing their sexual orientation thus demonizing both smoking and lesbians, a B- for fanning and eyerolling, an A+ for smugness and no marks for his belated thank you when all he had to do in the first place was politely ask them to move or move himself. Paul gets an F for poor grammar and usage.

Tobacco smoking is not illegal. Ban it if you like but until it is a taboo material by law - the bans are a waste of time and energy.
Promise: Big Tobacco has more money to spend in lawyers than any city or state in the country. BT has lots more money to spend on keeping WeHo in court with costly litigation. One may love the idea - but in point of fact - it is gonna cost a whole lotta money in the long run.

WeHo and her many task forces (???) is taking nanny stateism to a brand new world. I am too old for a nanny. Note this as well. Smoking citizens are now having their rights curtailed.

I spent many years in Bosotn. The term "Banned in Boston" was part and parcel of my vernacular. WeHo should take note (and so should Original Paul) that the "New England Watch and Ward Society" soon became the target of ridicule which it is to this day. Here is the link to info on the Society which censored/banned all they could until they became a joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_and_Ward_Society It would hurt me as a resident of WeHo to see it become the "Banned in Boston" City of the West . (I thought Salt Lake had cinched that titile years ago). How did a city that champions "rights" get into the business of banning so many things? Equal Rights are equal rights. That is what equal means. Choice is choice. Who decides, lately is a mystery to me.

Well, in my 10:58 post above on Dec. 29th I mentioned that I hadn't seen much of any anti-gay sentiment attached to smoking bans. I guess Paul is trying to make up for that with his garlic and lesbians.

- MJM

Michael - even in WeHo it's not always about garlic and lesbians - no matter how it's spun - but you make a valid point - guess that had to slither into the issue. I worry more about equal rights and less government participation when it's not about restricting those rights. I am not Liberatarian, A GOP or an anarchist. I simply like the idea of all people being able to do as the law allows them - the real law. And if you purport to be a city of that persuasion - stay with it. You don't like smoke - avoid it; fur - don't wear it, marriage rights - the same for everyone.
You know the list. Express your opinion intelligently and don't jam it down the throats of the public. Why does it seem to damn logical to me?

They were holding hands and affectionate. That determined to me they were lesbians. Since lesbians are women, I don't see how my comment can be misread? Chloe just wants to make trouble because she's bored.

Paul, if you'd seen a man and a woman over there being affectionate to each other would you have noted that there were two heterosexuals who were smoking?

- MJM

@MJM - you have just let loose the hounds.

He would have said "Two breeders"

@Ali - ROFL