Austin may pull teeth out of smoking ban

<i>The Austin American- Statesman</i> ^ | 10/30/03 | Jeremy Schwartz

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Smokers in Austin can take a deep breath and relax. Six months after voting to ban smoking in the city's bars, nightclubs and restaurants, a revamped City Council appears poised to reaffirm smokers' rights to light up at a concert or after a nice meal.

The council is scheduled to vote today on a new smoking ordinance that would effectively reverse the ban approved by former Mayor Gus Garcia's council in June. The new law would allow bars and restaurants to buy a $100 annual smoking license, require live music venues to offer two hours of smoke-free shows a week and force restaurants to construct fully enclosed and ventilated smoking sections.

Anti-smoking advocates, who tend to see smoking bans as an inevitable and evolutionary process, are predictably outraged, charging the council with betraying the public.

"I think once the community hears about this they will be really puzzled and angry that the council is backing down," said Julie Winckler, a spokeswoman for the Tobacco Free Austin Coalition, which is made up of 16 organizations including the American Cancer Society and the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Mayor Will Wynn, who said he personally despises cigarette smoke, said he is introducing the new ordinance because he is worried a smoking ban will hurt business.

"In this economy I feel I have to defer to jobs," said Wynn, who owns property on Sixth Street, including buildings that have been leased to a bar. Business owners "are scared to death about this. I empathize with them."

Wynn said revenue from the $100 permits will go to public education on smoking and enforcement of the law. The city's current ordinance, passed in 1994 and rarely enforced, requires that smoking sections be separate and enclosed and that 25 percent of space at live shows be smoke-free. Wynn said the new law would generate enough money to pay city employees to make code checks.

Bar owners, who argued that a ban would be disastrous for business and tarnish the city's status as Live Music Capital of the World, are predictably happy with their apparent victory over anti-smoking advocates.

The new law "is stronger than (the one adopted in) '94, but it won't go to zero," said Bob Woody, president of the East Sixth Street Community Association. "For them to expect it to go to zero is martyrdom. It's not opium, you know what I mean? If and when (smoking) is completely outlawed, it will still have a place in society."

If Austin votes against a ban, it would be bucking a trend that has found its greatest support on the East and West coasts. California has had a state ban since 1998 and, in the last year, New York City and Boston have joined more than 1,000 cities in the Northeast that have outlawed public puffing in bars and restaurants. Closer to home, Las Cruces, N.M., and El Paso have enacted total bans; Round Rock outlawed smoking in restaurants. Competing studies and anecdotal evidence are used by both sides of the debate to show that smoking either does or doesn't hurt business.

But bar and restaurant owners say that what's good for other places doesn't always make sense here. "What works in Austin and Texas a lot of times is the total opposite of California," Woody said.

Anti-smoking forces are not giving up the fight and have spent much of the week trying to rally the public and lobby Council Member Raul Alvarez, who they consider a possible swing vote. Wynn and Council Members Brewster McCracken and Jackie Goodman are sponsoring the new rules; Daryl Slusher, Danny Thomas and Betty Dunkerley voted for the smoking ban in June.

Alvarez, who voted against the smoking ban before, said this week that he would be consistent with his earlier statements favoring forcing more establishments to construct dedicated smoking areas.

The proposed ordinance says establishments must have dedicated smoking areas if they earn less than 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales. Alvarez wants to increase that to 70 percent to 80 percent, which would likely put dozens of additional establishments under the stricter rules.

Such a compromise is unlikely to make either side happy.

While anti-smoking forces are pushing for at least a total ban in restaurants, business owners say the stricter definition would force dozens of bars that sell some food to install costly smoking areas. According to ventilation contractors, new separate air filtering systems would cost several thousand dollars. Woody said that could lead some establishments to stop selling food.

Another clause in the new ordinance would forbid smoking when people under 18 are present, such as at an all-ages show..

The ban reversal wasn't surprising to anyone who paid attention to the city's May election, which tilted the balance in favor of the pro-smoker movement. Wynn replaced Garcia, who had led the adoption of the smoking ban, and McCracken defeated anti-smoking advocate Margot Clarke.

One of Wynn's first decisions after taking office was to delay iimplementing the smoking ban until January, giving the new council time to craft a replacement ordinance. During that time, the council appointed a task force to study the issue. The task force split in two and earlier this month presented dueling reports. One called for a total ban to be phased in over nine months. The other called a smoking ban bad for business.

[lormand]

The Austin City Council makes a three ring circus look like a think-tank. If ever one has the unpleasant experience of seeing a council meeting live or on access TV, try it for a few minutes. It reeks with transvestites singing seasonal songs, and malcontent neo-marxists railing against developement and Walmarts.

This stupid ordinance should have never passed in the first place. What else do you expect from idiot bed-wetting commie-libs?

[HarleyD]

"Wynn said revenue from the $100 permits will go to public education on smoking and enforcement of the law."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What did they do with the money from the tabacco lawsuit? Does anyone want to bet not one dime of this money will be spent on public education on smoking? What a way to tax a select group.

[Lockbox]

So it all about the money, to hell with non-smokers' rights.

[Eastbound]

Wave of the future. City councils across America find ways to create more revenues by manipulating private businesses. Hey. I thought second-hand smoke was the issue. Yeah, right. Next thing you know they will be setting the street price on illegal drugs and marijuana. Watch out, drug cartels. Locals will be muscling in to your trade, if they aren't already..

[Just another Joe]

Puff

[Just another Joe]

It's always been about the money, the he!! with anybodies 'rights'

What makes you think that a nonsmoker has the "right" to tell a business owner how to run their business?
Nonsmokers are not forced to enter any privately owned business.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I'm for the ban now. I must blame this on GWB. The solar flare destroyed 98% of my brain last night so now I am a Liberal. I guess I'm the smartest liberal around and I will dominate the world soon. I wrote this to expose the truth.

The Liberal Slant.

The planes on nine eleven,
Were piloted by him.
The first Gulf War and Viet Nam,
He’s to blame for them.
Korea and sure World War Two,
Once again his fault.
And in there too, Geraldo found,
He looted Capone’s Vault.
Extinction of the dinosaurs,
And yes the Big Bang too.
George Dubaya Bush, he did it all,
And he blames me and you.

Flurry 10/30/03

[CSM]

Yep, to hell with private property rights! If it saves just one child it is worth it!

[Conspiracy Guy]

Non smokers have a right to not patronize smokey places just like smokers have a right to not patronize places they can't smoke. It's call free enterprise and should be up to the business owner to determine who their market is.

[CSM]

Wow, your brain grew back very quickly!

[Conspiracy Guy]

oooops, I've been outed. Yes I am still a conservative. But it is easy to act liberal. I could act liberal if I was S--T faced drunk. But I'd break role from time to time.

[CSM]

Let me take this thread hostage! I have a good story for you, and your drunk reference is what sparked it.

The other day I was at my local watering hole, drinking a few MGD's and Smokin' away (Now it belongs in the thread). A couple of old-timer regulars start talking to me. One asks if I ever served in the military, I answer yes. He then asks what I think of this second Vietnam in Iraq. I ask him how it is a Vietnam. He goes into stories about he was in Vietnam and he knows. I then ask if he has been to Iraq to know what is happening there. Of course he hasn't. So, I ask what is basing his opinion this time, well, he says the news, etc. I ask him to give me specific examples that were reported that he saw also happen in Vietnam.

Well, he goes on to say that in Vietnam children would walk up to troops with grenades and kill US Soldiers. I said that was terrible and if he experienced it then I believe it happened in Vietnam, but I haven't heard that it happened in Iraq. He then admitted that it isn't happening in Iraq. So, of course, I ask him again for examples. Long story shortened a little bit, he couldn't of course give any specific examples of how it is like Vietnam. I told him that rather than spout the party line, he may want to engage in actual fact finding activities.

The whole conversation, his buddy is barking about how he never served, but given the chance he would have. How he grew up with guys that went to 'nam and so he knows more about the Army than I do. That because I never served in Combat, then I don't know anything and that my opinion didn't matter.

I congratulated guy number 2 on his allegiance to his friends who served in 'nam, and on his dedication to the country. Then I asked, just out of curiosity, which of the Democratic nominations are you going to vote for? His answer was that he doesn't vote and he has never voted in his life!

Of course I bust out laughing and say, "You mean to tell me you claim to have the guts to serve and pull a trigger, and you don't even have the guts to pull a lever? Don't try to claim to be a true American anymore!" This of course, lit his fuse and he was subsequently threatening to kick my azz. I bought a round for the two, chuckled, shook my head and changed the subject. Anyway, it was very comical to me!

Now, smoke 'em if ya got 'em! Get this thread back on track.

[jimt]

It's nice to see the anti-smoking pinheads pushed back a little, and common sense beginning to come through.

Austin lost about $2500 back in '89 when my lovely bride and I dropped in on the first night of our honeymoon. After discovering the anti-smoking hysteria had resulted in many establishments conforming to their unreasonable requirements, we shook the dust off our feet and went to Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Had a great time.

[Conspiracy Guy]

A real patriot he was. Too many sheeple don't know to look beyond CBS, NBS, ABC, and CNN. The only comparison of Nam to Iraq is American troops on foreign soil. that is the end of it plain and simple.

[CSM]

They both also thought we should pull out and let the Iraqi people just get slaughtered. It really shows the typical mind of a liberal!

[Conspiracy Guy]

Pulling out is simple but voids going in and thus demeans the sacrifices made. Pulling out now would make it another Viet Nam.

[Great Dane]

The council is scheduled to vote today on a new smoking ordinance that would effectively reverse the ban approved by former Mayor Gus Garcia's council in June. The new law would allow bars and restaurants to buy a $100 annual smoking license, require live music venues to offer two hours of smoke-free shows a week and force restaurants to construct fully enclosed and ventilated smoking sections.

This seems a bit silly and here we go again, pay us, and you can smoke

[lockjaw02]

Austin's less restrictive ban was approved today

Council approves new smoking ordinance

at KVUE News Online - Oct 30 5:22 PM
Council approves new smoking ordinance 06:56 PM CST on Thursday, October 30, 2003 KVUE News The Austin City Council approved a controversial smoking ordinance late Thursday afternoon.