Posted on 02/14/2005 5:26:50 AM PST by 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.
A VERY Happy Valentines Day, SheLion! :^D
Many restaurants have gone smoke free...........by their own choice. Wehn we were fighting the smoking ban in delaware some of the most vocal opponents were the owners of places that had already gone smoke-free, because they didn't want to have their market niche taken away from them.
If more people had your attitude, then the market forces would be able to do it's work and there would be available choices for all.
Since you don't like it, why do you rent to smokers? It is your property, you don't have to permit smoking within your property.
As a smoker I wouldn't rent from you, but I support your right to not rent to smokers at all.
If a company bans smoking at work ... fine. The company I work for already has that in place. What i do at 5:05 is MY business not my company's.
My point is that if they can make this decision, where does it stop? Can they tell me that I can't watch TV because it will rot my brain? I can't play hockey because it's dangerous? I can't have sex a woman because, for all they know she may be a filthy slut, and I can be subjected to AIDS?
That's it, exactly. Owners of establishments should have the right to designate their business as "smoker friendly" or "smoke prohibitive" based upon their own desire - not of government. Patrons should have the option to make the choice of either having commerce with them or not at the door.
Personally, I prefer restaurants without smoke, and if I drank, I'd prefer to drink at home in a non-smoking environment.
But look at it from the opposite way........we are talking about passing laws to prevent this kind of stuff.......if they pass a law to prevent an employer from not hiring someone who smokes, that leaves the door open to force employers to hire people they don't wish.
I don't like the idea of hiring/firing based upon what legal activities one engages in on their own time any more than you do. But I dislike government intrusion even more.
Who would ever believe someone would smoke so much and be so lazy that they never would wash their windows! If it were up to me, I WOULD NOT rent to smokers (mainly because it is more costly) but my husband is in charge of all of our rental properties because I don't like to get involved. As for you not wanting to rent from a non-smoker, who are you kidding? I suppose you interview your potential landlord and ask if they smoke and if they say "no," then you say "oh, I can't rent from you." Right.
You are right and we did mention it to our server but she said they allow it so basically "too bad." We will not go there again. I do not want to eat in establishments where one must go through a de-toxification process afterward. We have several places we will not patronize. Unfortunately, we live in Ohio and Ohio has one of the largest smoking populations in the U.S.
I agree. Unfortunately, this does allow companies to choose who they "don't like" based upon factors not related to the job or whether or not they can perform the duties required.
That's called discrimination in the workplace.
I don't like gov't intrusion either, but sometimes it is for a good reason.
If you think that then you don't understand what this is all about.
It's not about smoking and health any more than seat belt laws were about safety.
It's about control .
Sit down and list the freedoms you have lost in the last thirty years, and you'll have an idea of the agenda.
THIS may not effect you, but the ones coming surely will.
BUMP!
For comments later.
Sounds to me like you have more than one problem.
What does seat belt laws have to do with this? Do you have something morally against them?
I always wear mine, and I live in NH, where there are no seat belt laws.
I live in Ohio and smoke and I will not go to a restaurant where I cannot smoke.Thereby we have both sides represented here and I firmly believe that it should be up to the business owner and not the govt to decide what said owner does with regards to their private property. Let the market decide the fate of the business if nonsmoking facilities were making more money than smoking facilities then there would be more of them.
Me again?? I've been registered with FRee Republic a lot longer then YOU!
I'm sorry you hate smokers so much. So why do you hang around them? I am sure there are plenty of places for you to go where you don't even have to SEE a smoker. Get real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.