Bars, clubs included in Austin smoke ban - ordinance allows tobacco in billiard halls, bingo parlors

Austin American-Statesman ^ | June 6, 2003 | By Stephen Scheibal

[MeekOneGOP]

Bars, clubs included in Austin smoke ban

Final city ordinance allows tobacco in billiard halls and bingo parlors but not in restaurants

An ordinance approved by the Austin City Council on Thursday will: •Ban smoking in bars, restaurants and music venues. •Allow smoking in billiard halls, bingo parlors and meeting halls for fraternal organizations. •Allow smoking within 15 feet of an establishment's door and in open-air patios. •Take effect Sept. 1.

By Stephen Scheibal

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Friday, June 6, 2003

Austin Mayor Gus Garcia preserved his 4-3 majority Thursday night to install a strict new smoking ban in the city's restaurants, bars and music venues.

The proposal would still allow smoking in billiard halls, bingo parlors and meeting halls for fraternal organizations.

But Garcia and other supporters of the ordinance narrowly dodged an exception that would allow smoking cigarettes in bars and music clubs. Owners of such establishments had warned that a ban might cut into business at a difficult economic time.

"I think it's very clear there will be an economic impact," Council Member Raul Alvarez said. Referring to clubs that have vanished from Austin's music scene in recent years, he added, "I know we're all very sensitive about not losing any more Liberty Lunches and Electric Lounges."

But health groups discounted the financial fears and said the proposal was needed to protect workers and patrons from secondhand smoke.

"Almost 25 percent of the U.S. population now lives in places that already have ordinances like this in place," said Ken Pfluger, chairman of the Tobacco-Free Austin Coalition, a group of health organizations that has led the charge for a total ban. "All the evidence points to the fact that business does not deteriorate."

The ordinance does not take effect until Sept. 1, meaning a new council might still have time to overturn it. Council Member Will Wynn, who voted against the ordinance, will soon become mayor, replacing Garcia, who steps down next month. Saturday's runoff election to replace Wynn pits Brewster McCracken, who opposes the regulations, against Margot Clarke, who favors them.

Wynn said he expects the next council to take the ordinance up again. The council also formed a task force to report back on the issue in August.

"As we saw late tonight, there's still a lot of definitional confusion," Wynn said.

It was far from certain that the exemption for bars would fail. Council Member Danny Thomas, a member of the 4-3 majority that endorsed the ordinance in two preliminary votes, made it known this week that he would not oppose a measure exempting bars from a ban.

Alvarez proposed the exemption, which would have allowed smoking in establishments that earn more than 51 percent of their quarterly income from alcohol. But Thomas said that might still force diners sitting near a restaurant bar to breathe secondhand smoke.

"I said bars," Thomas said, adding that he couldn't find a way to narrow the definition. "I wanted (tobacco-free) restaurants. I made that very clear."

Garcia originally proposed a total ban to avoid charges that the ordinance would give bars an advantage attracting smokers.

Such arguments re-emerged Thursday night. Bob Cole, a radio talk show host who owns Hill's Café in South Austin, showed up to argue against an ordinance that would target restaurants but not bars.

"It's third reading," Cole said, adopting the council jargon for a final vote. "That's way new."

Another pitfall opened up Thursday when the council received a letter from an Austin lawyer representing the East Sixth Street Community Association, a group of business owners, property owners and residents.

The letter stopped short of threatening a lawsuit. But it said six issues made the ordinance unfair or illegal, including inconsistencies with state law and discriminatory exemptions.

"At issue here is not whether smoking tobacco is 'good' or 'bad.' What is at issue here is the extent to which the city may dictate to its citizens what is good or bad for them," wrote Jennifer Riggs, the association's lawyer. She added, "The issue here is over far more than smoking."

But proponents of a ban rejected the notion that the ordinance could be overturned in court.

"It's been done in so many places before," Pfluger said.

Council members also met a fresh lobbyist in Mike Sheffield, president of the Austin Police Association. He said he told some council members Thursday that the ban would be difficult to enforce and would throw police in the middle of a fight that's left strong feelings on both sides.

"I have an incredible visual," echoed Council Member Jackie Goodman, an opponent of the ordinance. "911, there's a smoker."

sscheibal@statesman.com; 445-3819

[Protagoras]

Back door attempts to get what you want by pretending to be the nanny for others is a very liberal trait. They do it all the time. In fact, the whole smoking fiasco is a liberal cause.

[Hodar]

The antis tried to get OSHA involved and OSHA told them that if they got involved that OSHA would set PELs (Permissable Exposure Levels) for ETS.

OSHA did, they are right here:

http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html

The chart indicates that it would take a phenominal amount of cigarettes in a confined area to reach toxicity. Exposure to toxins is not a good thing, so how bad is too bad? What you and I can tolerate without discomfort, may hurt another person.

[austinTparty]

Just look at the rhetoric... state as steam-roller. I find that fitting. Rolling right over private property rights, individual liberty and anything else in its path. The juggernaut of the state.

You have to remember, that for some people, being right-wing merely means that they believe in "law and order" and their own version of government-imposed social values, not individual rights, natural law or liberty.

[Gabz]

Where you are wrong is that all of these smoke-free (read anti-smoker) ordinances even forbid break rooms or smoking lounges. that was my point.

If there was such a demand for smoke-free restaurants there would have been a lot more of them before now.

As it is, these types of laws and ordinances are also hurting those establishments that had chosen, voluntarily, to go smoke-free. The government mandates have taken away their marketing strategy and customer niche.

[Just another Joe]

OSHA did, they are right here:

No, they didn't.
Those are OHSA PELs for the some of the individual chemicals found in ETS, not for ETS.
OSHA has never set a PEL for ETS.

[Hodar]

I can't comment on 4,000 toxins, but I did find this ....

Here are eleven of the most toxic.

Acetone - A flammable, colorless liquid used as a solvent. It's one of the active ingredients in nail polish remover. The tobacco industry refuses to say how acetone gets into cigarettes.

Ammonia - A colorless, pungent gas. The tobacco industry says that it adds flavor, but scientists have discovered that ammonia helps you absorb more nicotine - keeping you hooked on smoking.

Arsenic - A silvery-white very poisonous chemical element. This deadly poison is used to make insecticides, and it is also used to kill gophers and rats.

Benzene - A flammable liquid obtained from coal tar and used as a solvent. This cancer-causing chemical is used to make everything from pesticides to detergent to gasoline.

Benzoapyrene - A yellow crystalline carcinogenic hydrocarbon found in coal tar and cigarette smoke. It's one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals in the world.

Butane - A hydrocarbon used as a fuel. Highly flammable butane is one of the key ingredients in gasoline.

Cadmium - A metallic chemical element used in alloys. This toxic metal causes damage to the liver, kidneys, and the brain; and stays in your body for years.

Formaldehyde - A colorless pungent gas used in solution as a disinfectant and preservative. It causes cancer; damages your lungs, skin and digestive system. Embalmers use it to preserve dead bodies.

Lead - A heavy bluish-gray metallic chemical element. This toxic heavy metal causes lead poisoning, which stunts your growth, and damages your brain. It can easily kill you.

Propylene Glycol - A sweet hygroscopic viscous liquid used as antifreeze and as a solvent in brake fluid. The tobacco industry claims they add it to keep cheap "reconstituted tobacco" from drying out, but scientists say it aids in the delivery of nicotine (tobaccos active drug) to the brain.

Turpentine - A colorless volatile oil. Turpentine is very toxic and is commonly used as a paint thinner.

http://womenclique.com/cigarettetoxins.html

As an aside: WTF would a tabacco plant have this crap in it? It doesn't. This stuff is added by TJ Morris and Co. to make the nicotine more reactive and more addictive. And the process of adding this stuff isn't cheap, but the result is a smoker that is more addicted than if they just smoked chopped up tobacco leaves.

[Protagoras]

You have to remember, that for some people, being right-wing merely means that they believe in "law and order" and their own version of government-imposed social values, not individual rights, natural law or liberty.

That bears repeating. This site is filty with that brand of "conservative".

[Dan from Michigan]

The some co-worker smokes, and the person is forced to deal with the 2nd hand smoke. It's not unreasonable to expect to breathe clean air.

Let the BUSINESS decide. If I don't want to breathe smoke air, I don't have to take that job by that PRIVATE company.

If I'm a customer that doesn't want to breake smoke air, I don't go to that PRIVATE business.

But no, the public health fascists(they are TRUE fascists, gun grabbers as well) and the anti-smoking gestapo always run to the Jack Boots in governemnt.

[Just another Joe]

but the result is a smoker that is more addicted than if they just smoked chopped up tobacco leaves.

Which is, BTW, one reason why I stuff my own.

[Dan from Michigan]

The problem is that smokers and private property rights aren's as organized as your public health fascist buddies.

[Gabz]

I hate to say it - but a lot of that stuff is already in the normal air you breath, as well as in what you exhale every time you breathe.

[Dan from Michigan]

You have to remember, that for some people, being right-wing merely means that they believe in "law and order" and their own version of government-imposed social values, not individual rights, natural law or liberty.

Bingo. Too many also don't understand that they're next.

[Hodar]

Hi Dan;

You must have missed my statement earlier. From the Customer point of view, I agree with you 100%. Let the owner decide on whether his place of business should be smoke-free or not. Personally, I think a smoke-free restuant could do very well, anywhere.

However, from the band and waitstaff point of view, they want to be able to earn their (usually meager) living without having to endure smoke. Most all business's have banned smoking (OSHA rules and regulatons concerning Smoking and the Workplace). The waitstaff and bands here in Austin have asked for the same consideration. And in this case; the waitstaff do not have a choice of not going to work. Unemployment sucks, and with jobs scarce they take what they can get. They should not be forced to breathe stale smoke 8 hours a day, simply because they work in a resturant.

[Just another Joe]

Why is it that no one who argues the anti-smoker's side, whether they actually are an anti or not, will ever take this bet?
Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm".

[Gabz]

Or my challenge - about the garage!!!!!!!!

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMm is right.

[VRWC_minion]

The problem is that smokers and private property rights aren's as organized as your public health fascist buddies.

You have the entire tobacco industry and restaurant industry at your disposal and yet you cannot come up with an adequate argument.

[Dan from Michigan]

First off, I put OSHA in the same league as BATF.

Unemployment sucks, and with jobs scarce they take what they can get. They should not be forced to breathe stale smoke 8 hours a day, simply because they work in a resturant.
While I agree that unemployment sucks, there is no right to work. People know what they get into and make their choice. There are some non smoking restaurants by choice. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I have a problem with
1. Public health lobbies in general.
2. Big government.(That's the real key)

As a gunowner, I know what's next.

[Dan from Michigan]

Here's MY arguement. It's none of the government's business. Period, end of story.

[Just another Joe]

(OSHA rules and regulatons concerning Smoking and the Workplace)

OSHA's Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Action Into Smoking Regulation

Click here for [Timeline of Action - a 12 year review]

PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2001

Q. What's the status of OSHA's proposal for a regulation on indoor air
quality and environmental tobacco smoke, otherwise known as
second-hand smoke?

A. OSHA's April 5, 1994 proposal on indoor air quality evoked the largest public response
in the agency's history, with more the 100,000 comments received when the comment
period closed in August 1995. Hearings began September 20, 1994 and ran until March
13, 1995, with more than 400 witnesses testifying. The post hearing comment period
ended January 16, 1996. At this time, OSHA is continuing to review the comments and
testimony from concerned Americans before proceeding. No target date has been
established for a final determination on the issue.
 

DECEMBER 2001

OSHA withdrawal of its Indoor Air Quality proposal

[Click HERE to read Action on Smoking and Health's (ASH) remarks (please read between the lines -- OSHA wasn't convinced) concerning their involvement in petitioning for this action to begin with, their lawsuit and their dismissal of this suit which has brought the book to close on this chapter in their never-ending quest to regulate behavior by using federal agencies to impose their will.  OSHA caught on, thankfully]

INDOOR AIR QUALITY

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Withdrawal of Proposal

SUMMARY: OSHA is withdrawing its Indoor Air Quality proposal and terminating the rulemaking proceeding. In the years
since the proposal was issued, a great many state and local governments and private employers have taken action to curtail
smoking in public areas and in workplaces. In addition, the portion of the proposal not related to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) received little attention during the rulemaking proceedings, and much of that consisted of commenters calling into
question significant portions of the proposal. As a result, record evidence supporting the non-ETS portion of the proposal is
sparse.

Withdrawal of this proposal will also allow the Agency to devote its resources to other projects. The Agency¹s current
regulatory priorities, as set forth in the Regulatory Agenda, include a number of important occupational safety and health
standards. This notice does not prelude any agency action that OSHA may find to be appropriate in the future.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective [insert date of publication in the Federal Register].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Public Affairs Office, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20210; Telephone (202) 693-1999; FAX (202) 693-1634.

Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor of Occupational Safety and health, U.S. Department of Labor.
It is issued pursuant to section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1594, 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 C.F.R. 1911.18.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this ________ of December 2001.

________________________

John L. Henshaw

Assistant Secretary of Labor

[VRWC_minion]

Here's MY arguement. It's none of the government's business. Period, end of story..

And its a wonderful argument except for the fact it doesn't work. But its good. By all means keep using it and when you wake up and find that the only bar you can smoke in is at the local Indian Reservation remember, period, end of story.