|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One year after California's no- smoking ban took effect in taverns, San Francisco authorities say they finally will crack down on those who ignore the law. Under a new directive, teams of police officers and health inspectors will make surprise visits to drinking establishments with orders to issue tickets to owners, employees and customers who are in violation of the state ban. The cost to patrons of a first-time offense: $76. The first step may be convincing bar owners and customers that the crackdown is serious. As reported by The Chronicle in November, San Francisco authorities have been winking at the ban all year. ``I don't think they're serious,'' a bartender at the M&M on 5th and Mission streets said yesterday as five patrons smoked at the bar. ``Smokers are pretty much defiant of (the law) -- they'll find another place to smoke.'' Under the ban, which was adopted to protect the health of bar workers and nonsmokers, bar owners are supposed to post ``No Smoking'' signs and ask patrons to refrain from lighting up. ``Those establishments that have historically not been in compliance are going to be open to direct enforcement,'' Rajiv Bhatia, a Health Department medical director, said yesterday. The Department of Health is mailing notification of the directive to all bar owners in San Francisco. Enforcement efforts could begin immediately. ``Visits will be unannounced and will focus on bars and taverns where there have been complaints about patrons smoking,'' the letter warned. ``The citations will be made by teams of health inspectors and police officers.'' Stanton Glantz, a cardiology professor at the University of California at San Francisco and a tobacco industry critic, hailed the directive, saying, ``The fact that city is taking this seriously is a real turning point for the whole state. ``This is a tremendous setback for Philip Morris and the National Smokers Alliance,'' Glantz said. ``San Francisco had emerged as the poster child for the industry's effort to discourage compliance.'' It still is. Yesterday, Michael Hambrick, senior vice president with the National Smokers Alliance, said that increased enforcement of the ban in San Francisco will ``lead to a greater effort to get the law changed. . . . Both smokers who are feeling more disenfranchised and bar owners who are feeling the economic pain (of having fewer customers) will go to greater lengths to have their voices heard in Sacramento.'' A manager of a Mission Street bar said that greater enforcement would drive away customers at his establishment, which is notorious for allowing smoking. ``It's bull--,'' he said. ``I don't want to lose business. It's bulls-- . . . . There are bigger things (for San Francisco authorities to enforce). I live in the Mission, and I have to clean out the hypodermic needles out of the back of my truck every day. ``Leave our bars alone,'' he said. ``We're the little fish. There are bigger fish to fry.'' It is not clear if Police Chief Fred Lau -- who signed the directive -- will assign extra officers to the task of enforcing the ban. Bhatia said the Health Department will see if it needs more inspectors to enforce the ban, which has been ineffective in bars in such areas as the Mission district and North Beach. According to a recent survey cited by the Health Department, just 50 percent of San Francisco bars are complying with the state ban on smoking. ``We are basically intent (now) on enforcing the ban,'' Bhatia said. ``We're hopeful that, eventually, the whole city will be brought into compliance.'' The ban on smoking in California restaurants, which took effect four years
ago, is working much better than the ban on smoking in bars. In the survey
cited by the Health Department, more than 90 percent of San Francisco's
bar-restaurant establishments are complying with the no-smoking ordinance.
|
Get a printer-friendly version of this article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
next/
previous
article in Chronicle section ©1999 San Francisco Chronicle Page A1 |
| Feedback |
|