Smoking in the workplace

GrandForksHarald.com ^ | 2-10-05 | Mike Troy

[SheLion]

HALLOCK, Minn. - On Dec. 18, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Grand Forks Tobacco Free Coalition at the Alerus Center. After listening to the panel members and researching both sides of the issues, and having lived in California when the smoking ban was instituted there, I strongly urge the Grand Forks City Council and other agencies to take no action on the issue at this time, except to research the facts on both sides.

Why? First, the health issue is seriously questionable. As the American Council on Science and Health has put it, "the role of environmental tobacco smoke in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial."

The term that comes to my mind is "comparative risk." That is, if you were to compare the risk of secondhand smoke to other risks found in homes and workplaces, you'd find little real difference, especially if those other risks were subject to the same scrutiny that secondhand smoke has endured.

Second, the economic issue is distorted, and our area cannot afford the risk that the same thing that happened in California will happen here. As someone who lived through California's non-smoking program, let me lend some insight as to its real effect.

The smoking ban in California was a failure. For one thing, it was accomplished through lies, exaggeration and bureaucratic gamesmanship. The lies included the health risks (for example, the statement that 50,000 people die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke) and false representations of health studies (check the World Health Organization and other groups on this).

The distortions included what the estimated economic impact would be on all workplaces. Minimal, the activists said. The reality proved different. The loss in productivity (from smokers having to leave the workplace to smoke) and jobs (from scores of restaurants and bars closing and other businesses moving) was substantial.

If you are not traveling, then bars and restaurants are a luxury. They're an activity on which customers choose to spend their discretionary dollars.

As the Bismarck Tribune pointed out in its editorial against smoking bans, smoking and food go together. So when restaurants force smokers out into the area's cold weather, those smokers do not go out to eat. They stay home and keep an equal number of non-smokers with them.

The result is a 40 percent to 60 percent loss in sales for bars and restaurants with bars. In California, this meant the closing of almost all non-chain restaurants and bars six months to three years after a smoking ban. And that was in a state where the weather does not deter smoking outside; you can expect a greater impact here.

In addition, many smokers are older or retired people, and pushing them outside in weather that lately has been dangerously cold probably would create higher health costs than would the status quo.

The well-financed special interests against the legal activity of smoking will coerce legislators into making a major mistake. Please let your representatives know that they should have all the facts before acting.

Troy is former economic development director of the Kittson County (Minn.) Office of Economic Development.

[Paved Paradise]

Gabz - one last thing. You are actually the only person I've see post something that shows any sort of kindness. The rest of the people on here are so busy telling me how it isn't bad for me and so on that it is very apparent that really what they are saying is they "don't care." I'm glad you do.

[Paved Paradise]

I have just sent umteen posts to you and others. I want you to show me where I said I think you should not be allowed to smoke? I don't want you to have smoking outlawed, but it would be nice if you would have more manners around us non-smokers.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I would find it almost impossible to go into a non-smoking bar. At one time I had stopped smoking for a long period of time and still can't imagine why I would want to patronize an establishment like that.

Its not impossible for me, but I always warm up a little when I see ashtrays. (No, I don't smoke, unless its a pipe) but I like to be in places where people relax and enjoy themselves, and smoking bars do this better than non-smoking bars.

If I were a bar owner, I would allow smoking and provide a good ventilation system in part of the place so that non-smokers or those who wanted to stay but were bothered by the smoke would be as comfortable as they could be. I also have no problem with nonsmoking establishments, escept that I would not normally return to them. Finally, if I were a bar owner myself, and the city or state decided on a smoking ban, I would see about moving to a different state. The degree of government control seems to vary a lot from state to state. No problem, since we are mobile.

[usgator]

I think you are right ... it just feels right.  For some reason a non-smoking bar just doesn't have the same atmosphere.

[Garnet Dawn]

I take our civil rights very personally. As for the rest, I've already said everythng I have to say to you.

[Madame Dufarge]

Smoking in the workplace would be up to the employer. You seem to be under the impression that I've argued otherwise.

As to courtesy and self-control, perhaps you should look to the timber in your own eye.

Difficult to do, I suppose, in the echo chamber.