 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Will ban leave patrons in a huff for a puff?
By ALICIA CALDWELL, Times Staff Writer She sees the day coming, and Mary Jean Bonfili is not looking forward to it. Customers come to El Cap, her beer and burger place, with certain expectations. They want a cold one, a good game on TV, a basket of wings and, quite frequently, a smoke. But if voters approve Amendment 6 in the November general election, as they seem poised to do, she's going to have tell them that smoking is no longer allowed in the St. Petersburg bar and restaurant. "They're going to be angry with me, but I'm hoping they won't be angry for long," said Bonfili, who has owned El Cap for 22 years. The measure, which would amend the state's Constitution to prohibit smoking in the workplace, would have a considerable impact on restaurants. It would outlaw smoking sections in restaurants and preclude smoking in attached bars. Standalone bars -- which are not connected to restaurants and serve virtually no food -- would not be affected. Smoking would still be allowed in designated smoking rooms in hotels and motels and retail tobacco shops. Administrators at Tampa International Airport are not sure whether they'd have to shut down the airport's five enclosed separately ventilated smoking lounges. Opponents say the indoor smoking restrictions are an erosion of personal freedom. Supporters call it a significant health issue. "Creating smoke-free workplaces, especially in restaurants, would have a major impact on public health," said Brenda Olsen, assistant executive director of the American Lung Association of Florida, which has contributed $400,000 to efforts to pass the measure. The lung association, along with the Florida/Puerto Rico affiliate of the American Heart Association and the Florida chapter of the American Cancer Society, joined efforts to collect the signatures necessary to get the proposed amendment on the ballot. Through mid September, their committee, Smoke Free for Health, had raised $5.5-million. Their efforts are backed by a wide-ranging coalition of more than 120 other groups, including the AARP of Florida, the Florida Medical Association and the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches. Opponents include the Florida Restaurant Association and Philip Morris, the tobacco giant. The tobacco company contributed $360,217 this year to the Committee for Responsible Solutions, according state Division of Elections records. The committee, which opposed the measure, is now inactive, records show. Philip Morris remains opposed, a spokesman for the company said, but the company believes it is the responsibility of Florida restaurants to fight the amendment actively. "They should have the loudest voices," said Billy Abshaw, manager of media programs for Philip Morris USA. "They should be the ones leading on this." Lea Crusberg, communications director of the Florida Restaurant Association, said many restaurants already are smoke-free by their owners' choice. "We think that's great, but we think that's great because it's their choice," Crusberg said. The association, which represents 10,000 restaurants, does not think the issue ought to be framed as an amendment to the state Constitution. The issue has been repeatedly defeated in the state Legislature, Crusberg said. That, said Ralph DeVitto, chief operating officer for the Florida American Cancer Society, is exactly why the coalition of health groups decided to go the route of amending the state Constitution. "We know that Floridians want smoke-free workplaces, including restaurants," DeVitto said. "Unfortunately, the Florida Legislature refused to address it." Representatives of the three groups said they had tried for years but had made no headway. "We lobbied hard, and they just wouldn't do it," said Barry Bennett, chairman-elect of the Florida/Puerto Rico affiliate of the American Heart Association. Bennett said he and others supporting the measure were confident that it would pass. Indeed, a St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald poll showed that 60 percent of those who said they would likely vote in the Nov. 5 general election were in favor of the measure, 36 percent were against it, and 4 percent were undecided. The statewide telephone poll of 800 likely voters conducted Sept. 24-26 has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. If Amendment 6 passes, the state Legislature will have the job of writing the enabling legislation, which would take effect no later than July 1, 2003. The legislation would include civil penalties for violations and delegate responsibility for enforcement. Other states that have smoke-free workplace laws like the restrictions proposed by Amendment 6 are California, Maine, Utah and Vermont. Similar measures also exist in cities throughout the U.S., including New York and Boston. Bar and restaurant owners in Tempe, Ariz., have noted dwindling sales since a voter-approved smoking ban took effect and recently have begun a drive to repeal the law. Nick Liakos, one of the owners of Nickos Fine Foods, an old-time diner in Tampa, said many smoking customers are talking about no longer patronizing his place. "I said, 'What are you going to do?' " he said. "What's going to happen is people are going to adjust to it." Joe Catania, owner of Cafe Grand in New Port Richey, said he wouldn't have any problem eliminating the smoking section from his 24-table restaurant since the smoking section sometimes has only a few patrons. But he thinks the measure might change the restaurant's ambiance. "Usually, the smokers come out later at night," he said. "They drink a little more. They're more party people." In Inverness, one of the owners of Coach's Pub and Eatery, where smoking is now allowed in certain areas, said smokers might be upset at first but would get used to the new laws. "People are still going to want to go out," Wendy Everett said. "They're just going to have to adjust their habits." -- Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times state desk
From the state wire
|
