San Francisco is set to introduce an extensive ban on outdoor smoking that would prohibit lighting up on bar patios and parklets throughout the city.
This proposed regulation has sparked significant backlash from local business owners, who claim that it represents another instance of excessive governmental control that could endanger neighborhood bars.
The contentious measure is being developed by Supervisor Myrna Melgar in collaboration with Dr. John Maa from the San Francisco Marin Medical Society. According to KTVU, this ordinance would mandate that bars and taverns adhere to the same outdoor smoking restrictions already enforced on restaurants under existing state and local laws.
Should the ordinance be adopted, patrons would no longer be permitted to smoke while enjoying their beverages in outdoor areas of bars in the famously progressive city.
Dr. Maa, a surgeon who supports the initiative, emphasized that the regulation is crucial for safeguarding customers, employees, and bystanders from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
“This is to protect the patrons of these establishments and also, importantly, the employees and anyone who might be exposed to secondhand smoke,” Maa explained to the news outlet.
He argued San Francisco should put public health ahead of business profits.
But furious bar owners have slammed the proposal as an example of heavy-handed government meddling.
Neil Holbrook, co-owner of O’Reilly’s Pub in Haight-Ashbury, said his parklet was intentionally created so customers could smoke while having a beer.
“One of the reasons we have a parklet is so people can come out and have a cigarette with their beer,” Holbrook said.
Other critics have rallied around an online petition that lists dozens of bars, worried that the ordinance could deal a blow to already struggling businesses and gut their revenue.
Skeptics also questioned how the law would even be enforced, noting smokers may simply move a few feet down the sidewalk — potentially leaving bar owners stuck policing public spaces beyond their doors.
Melgar’s office has tried to ease concerns by claiming the ordinance is not meant to be punitive, and that officials plan outreach efforts and will offer free signage to encourage compliance.
Yet for many locals, the proposal feels like just another aggressive nanny-state crackdown in a city already infamous for its maze of regulations.
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors will vote next month. If approved, the smoking ban would take effect early next year.
