05/07/2008 - The Wichita Eagle - Brent Wistrom

The City Council approved an indoor smoking ban Tuesday in all Wichita businesses that allow people under age 18 though the doors.

But bars may remain smoker-friendly if they keep minors out and post a sign at each entrance warning that it could be smoky inside.

The ban would go into effect in late August or early September at the earliest. The council will have a second-reading vote June 3 to formally enact it.

The city also opted to ban smoking at Century II and Mid-Continent Airport, the only two city-owned facilities that still allow smoking.

The 4-3 vote follows months of public debate that largely focused on private business rights and public health concerns.

The council initially considered a ban at all businesses. When the votes didn't line up, council members Jeff Longwell and Lavonta Williams sought a compromise.

That compromise was expanded Tuesday when the council opted to include all businesses -- not just food-service businesses -- that allow minors.

The law includes exceptions for charitable events, but the site of such an event could not allow minors in until 12 hours after the event.

"We have to start someplace," said Mayor Carl Brewer, who advocated for a ban at all businesses.

Vice Mayor Sue Schlapp and council members Paul Gray and Jim Skelton opposed the ban, citing private business rights.

Gray said he generally agrees with keeping children away from secondhand smoke but added the true culprits are those who smoke around their children in the car or at home.

"If we're really that concerned about it, we should just ban it outright," he said.

As noted repeatedly during the hour-long discussion, a 2006 U.S. surgeon general's report shows that secondhand smoke can cause cancer and heart disease in people of all ages -- and no amount of smoke is safe.

More than 15 people spoke -- about half in favor and half opposed. That's far more than the council sees even on controversial issues, but it was far less than some council members and business owners expected.

Longwell said he viewed it as a sign that people are comfortable with the compromise.

The Rev. H. Setter, also referred to as Father H, advocated against a ban. But he said the council reached a good compromise.

"It's one of those issues in our society where if it's all or nothing, nobody really wins," he said.

Businesses pick a side

The new law would let businesses allow smoking in enclosed rooms that have their own ventilation and are approved by the city's inspectors.

If the law is approved on second reading, many bar-and grill-style businesses must choose between costly renovations, becoming an 18-and-up establishment or banning indoor smoking.

Chris Arnold, owner of the River City Brewing Co., said he might try to get ahead of the curve and go smoke-free before the law forces him to do so.

He said he had hoped for a comprehensive ban or no ban at all to put his business on a level playing field with the bars he is surrounded by in the heart of Old Town.

"But it is what it is, and we'll do our best to get behind it," he said.

Paul Weigand, owner of Shooters, a pool hall and bar on South Hydraulic, said he'll probably remain smoker-friendly and keep the 20 or 30 minors who shoot pool with their parents or friends out.

"I guess if we've got to have one (a smoking ban), it's not that bad," he said.

Larry Doss, owner of Walt's Sports Bar and Grill on East Central, said he'd also probably remain smoker-friendly because most of his clients are adults.

Holding their ground

The compromise ban pleased many, but others continue to oppose it.

Members of the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society said they want a comprehensive ban so all workers and customers, regardless of age, are protected from secondhand smoke.

"Do it right the first time," said Diane Tinker, a development director with the American Lung Association. "Why should taking a breath be a matter of life and death?"

Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of the Tobacco Free Wichita Coalition, said the vote was "a step in the right direction."

"That's the best we can hope for with this city council," he said.

Although he is personally pleased, he said others in the coalition will continue to press for a stronger ban.

And they will continue to have opposition.

"No one has the right to be on somebody else's property on their own terms," said Bob Weeks, a blogger who has opposed a ban from the start.

What seems certain is that the issue will return.

"Is this the end-all decision, is this the end-all ordinance?" asked council member Williams. "I don't think so. It's a start."