KQED⁠61%

Bar Owners, Health Advocates Clash Over Smoking Ban on Outdoor Patios in San Francisco ⁠16%

By Sydney Johnson⁠59%

5/18/2026, 11:03:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.4% saturation with 245 hits. Analysis detected 2,129 faulty-reasoning hits from 833 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠16% (18,502 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.50% of the article peer group.

A proposal to ban smoking on outdoor patios in San Francisco has sparked tension between health advocates and small businesses, particularly bars and restaurant owners, who fear it will drive away customers at a time when many are struggling to stay afloat. 
The ordinance, proposed by Supervisor Myrna Melgar, would prohibit smoking on outdoor patios at bars and taverns. 
Melgar said that, in addition to promoting public health, the move would “close an existing loophole” in the city’s health code that already prohibits smoking inside restaurants and bars, as well as in parks and other public spaces. 
On Monday, supervisors agreed to delay a scheduled vote on the ordinance to the June 8 land use and transportation committee meeting, after an outpouring of concern over the issue, both in support and opposition. 
“People feel very differently about this issue. 
I do think that there can be a path forward that negotiates timing, definitions, enforcement, all of these things,” said Melgar, who chairs the committee and said amendments will be considered before the item comes back for a vote. 
“I don’t want to withdraw this legislation because I think it is a legitimate public health issue.” 
Health advocacy groups, including the San Francisco Marin Medical Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and the American Lung Association, have expressed support for the proposal. 
“Many of the smoking patios in San Francisco are covered, which makes the pollution worse, or surrounded by apartment buildings, which exposes more people,” read a letter signed by five physicians at the University of California, San Francisco. 
“The cardiovascular effects (heart attacks and stroke) of smoke exposure happen within minutes and anyone who has risk factors like high blood pressure, cholesterol, weight or age is immediately endangered by secondhand smoke.” 
About 9% of adults 18 and older in San Francisco are estimated to smoke, according to 2023 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
But some residents and business owners are pushing back against the proposal, saying it could hurt business, limit gathering spaces where people can still smoke outdoors and potentially create new tensions with neighbors if smokers move to sidewalks and other nearby areas. 
“It would affect our income significantly to have smoking removed, especially quite so suddenly,” said Sophie Lewis, a manager at El Rio, a LGBTQ bar and music venue in the Mission. 
“El Rio has, for most of our 40-plus-year history, allowed smoking on our patio, and that is one of the reasons that people do come there.” 
The proposal comes as studies have shown that young people are drinking less and spending fewer dollars at bars. 
A 2025 Gallup survey found that the percentage of adults in the U.S. who say they consume alcohol has dropped to 54%, continuing a downward trend and marking a historic 90-year low. 
Dan Surratt, who co-owns Finnegan’s Wake in Cole Valley, said that the 50-year-old business has never received a complaint for allowing smoking in its beer garden. 
“If this was an issue, we would make adjustments,” Surratt said. 
“We have so many other important things for this city to be focusing on.” 
The proposal does not specifically include any language around smoking cannabis. 
However, the city’s Office of Cannabis states that, generally, users cannot smoke or vape cannabis in places where they cannot smoke tobacco. 
A petition signed by several San Francisco bars, including Zeitgeist, El Rio and The Stud, has gathered nearly 2,500 signatures to oppose the smoking ban. 
“What it does is send a message — and that message is not directed at the problems San Franciscans are living with every day. 
It is directed at a particular lifestyle, a particular set of businesses and a particular class of customer,” the petition read. 
The city’s Office of Small Business unanimously voted to oppose the proposal in April. 
Some bars already prohibit smoking on their premises. 
The proposal is expected to impact about 50 bars. 
Other Bay Area cities, including Oakland and San José, have passed similar legislation. 
UCSF researchers supporting the legislation point to studies that showed sales for hospitality businesses did not drop when bars and other venues banned outdoor smoking, and noted that some studies found a positive impact for some venues because they attracted customers who avoided places where there was smoke. 
Proponents of the ban also said smoking on patios exposes workers to smoke. 
But bar owners said the new regulation would also harm workers by putting them in an uncomfortable position of having to police patrons at venues where they previously could smoke, or add costs for security to handle enforcement. 
“It is very difficult to make a living in San Francisco on service industry wages,” Lewis said, “and putting the burden of enforcement on employees who are already struggling to survive right now in San Francisco puts one more barrier in the way of people having a successful life in San Francisco.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Sydney Johnson: 2.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Sydney Johnson: 3.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic16.6%This article: 4.8%Sydney Johnson: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Sydney Johnson: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 1.7%Sydney Johnson: 7.6%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect1.7%This article: 24.6%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion24.6%This article: 7.7%Sydney Johnson: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Sydney Johnson: 4.4%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 1.7%Sydney Johnson: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias1.7%This article: 29.4%Sydney Johnson: 7.9%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias29.4%This article: 16.2%Sydney Johnson: 2.5%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias16.2%This article: 5.0%Sydney Johnson: 1.4%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Sydney Johnson: 2.3%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Sydney Johnson: 2.6%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Sydney Johnson: 1.1%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 4.2%Sydney Johnson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%Sydney Johnson: 2.8%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 4.6%Sydney Johnson: 1.8%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 5.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope5.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Sydney Johnson: 4.0%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 4.6%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring4.6%This article: 4.6%Sydney Johnson: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon4.6%This article: 10.2%Sydney Johnson: 5.0%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 2.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 9.2%Sydney Johnson: 2.3%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%Sydney Johnson: 3.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.5%Sydney Johnson: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.5%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.2%Sydney Johnson: 1.1%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote10.2%This article: 9.4%Sydney Johnson: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection9.4%This article: 21.0%Sydney Johnson: 3.0%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice21.0%This article: 2.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination2.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sydney Johnson: 0.7%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

833 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers46%attributed speech450writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMyrna Melgar • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMyrna Melgar • 7 words • 100.0% coverageMyrna Melgar • 39 words • 100.0% coverageMyrna Melgar • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of California, San Francisco • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageSophie Lewis • 31 words • 0.0% coverageSophie Lewis • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageDan Surratt • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDan Surratt • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDan Surratt • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageOffice of Cannabis • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageOffice of Small Business • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageUCSF researchers • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageSophie Lewis • 52 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words9.9% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+92.7 ptsWriter: 7.3%University of California, San Francisco: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-30.2 ptsWriter: 30.2%University of California, San Francisco: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-17.3 ptsWriter: 17.3%University of California, San Francisco: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.