Hookah vote hooks city with hypocrisy

It’s time to review the city’s strict — and suddenly hypocritical — anti-smoking policies.

According to local ordinances, smoking is very bad. So bad that drugstores can’t even sell cigarettes, which happen to be a perfectly legal product enjoyed by millions of Americans, many of whom also enjoy a persistent, hacking cough.

But the ban doesn’t benefit public health. It simply penalizes the business, as smokers aren’t going to quit simply because they can’t buy a pack at CVS. They’ll just go to White Hen instead, or perhaps Honey Farms, unless the Honey Farms is located in the building owned by the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, which is an educational institution, so cigarettes can’t be sold there, either.

It can get a bit confusing, and needlessly intrusive to business as well. Last year, nonetheless, dubbing public health a paramount concern, the City Council passed a host of amendments that impose greater restrictions on the sale and advertising of tobacco products.

Not everyone is a fan of the ordinances. Just last week, in fact, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that one of the proposed restrictions — a ban on tobacco advertising visible from streets, parks or schools — violated the First Amendment.

“The broad sweep of the ordinance suggests that the (city) did not consider how to tailor the restrictions so as not to unduly burden the plaintiffs’ free speech rights and the rights of adults to truthful information about tobacco products,” wrote Judge Douglas P. Woodlock.

The tough ordinances also ban any form of smoking at city-owned public buildings. District 2 City Councilor Philip P. Palmieri, a leading advocate of the laws, last year claimed, “There is not a more critical issue than this.”

So you can forgive my confusion when the council voted 11-0 Tuesday on an amendment that would allow a hookah bar in Union Station — one of the biggest public buildings in the city.

The approval paves the way for hookah smoke at Byblos Lounge, a Mediterranean restaurant and bar that’s not exactly thriving in Union Station. Last time I went there with a friend for dinner, we were the only patrons. One would-be customer claimed on a restaurant review website that she and her husband tried to have dinner at Byblos March 22, and the place was closed for the evening.

So, essentially, the city is committed to banning smoke wherever it can, except for struggling businesses that pay rent for space in city-owned buildings. The city says that Byblos’ formed its plan before the ordinances, but still — aren’t we sending a mixed message?

“Probably,” agreed City Councilor Konstantina Lukes. “But the explanation we received was that the place wasn’t doing well and they think they needed a hookah bar. My common sense tells me that’s not going to save them. But the council doesn’t want to be accused of blocking the chance to help them survive.”

I asked Palmieri if the move was sending a mixed message.

“No,” he said. “The lounge had paid rent at Union Station during the time that there wasn’t an ordinance.”

Er, OK. But didn’t the pharmacies that can’t sell cigarettes pay city taxes before the ordinance? Does the council’s devotion to saving lives cease when a local lounge needs more business?

For the non-hipsters among us, a hookah is used for smoking flavored tobacco. But lest you believe that hookah smoke is less harmful than cigarettes, a person in an hourlong hookah session inhales 100 to 200 times the volume of smoke in a single cigarette, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“People falsely believe that the water purifies the smoke and makes it more safe,” said Ryan Coffman, director of the Tobacco Consulting Service at UMass Memorial Medical Center. “But hookahs aren’t a safe alternative to cigarettes.”

It’s understandable that the city doesn’t want to see another business at Union Station go up in smoke. Officials are so desperate for commerce in the building that they’d probably sanction an opium den on the platform, if they thought it would help.

But we can’t have it both ways and treat local businesses differently. We can’t fight smoking on one hand while supporting it with another. Fair is fair.

“I’m totally against us slowly becoming a nanny city,” said City Councilor Michael Germain, who voted against the ordinances. “I don’t believe we should infringe on people’s right to harm themselves by smoking. It’s legal. We shouldn’t be in the middle of it.”

Hear, hear. Especially when the rules are inconsistent, ill-conceived and all over the place.