Posted on 06/06/2003 9:11:34 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
 |
|
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
Give me a frikkin' break!
FMCDH
You just sound so gleeful that patrons and owners are being stripped of libertys and rights.
Why are you not a member of some statist organization? Or ARE you?
The proportion of the population that smokes varies from a low of 13.2 percent in Utah to more than 30 percent in Kentucky. The national average is 22.9 percent of the population, a decrease of 0.3 percent from last year.
http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2002/components/risks/RiskFactors.html
From the customer point of view, you are correct. From the bartender, waitstaff, band, manager (you get the idea), it's not. Just as you are protected at work, the workers in resturants and bars are entitled to the same protection.
But, this is the crux. We all know that smokers can (and do) go to resturants and not smoke while they are inside. You can still smoke, just not there. Like the 7-11's in some states. In some states, it's illegal to consume alcohol on the premises. You can drink, just not there.
And if someone could prove that florescent lights CAUSED skin cancer, would you say "tough, the lights were florescent when you started?"; or would you expect the gov't to step in and force the business to go to some other form of lighting? Same thing.
For example; X-Rays used to be found everywhere. Way back when, you used to buy shoes, and put your foot betweeen a phosphor tube and an X-Ray tube to see how your foot fit inside the shoe. Really and truly .... Then they discovered that people were getting messed up by the radiation, and they forced the shoe stores to remove the expensive X-Ray Shoe Fitting machines. Scares the crap out of me, cause I'd have irradiated myself to death, just to watch my toes wiggle for hours.
That's not the crux of the matter.
My beef is that the govt, of ANY type, is imposing laws on private property owners, banning a legal action, without a shred of proof that the action will harm the people that go to that business.
If the owner of a business wants to ban smoking on the property I have no problem with that. It's their property
For the govt to do it, against the wishes of the owner, with no proof of harm, is just wrong. It's Big Daddy Govt telling it's children, "Don't do it because I SAID don't do it."
See post #15.
It will keep happening until smokers change their image. The private property argument is getting creamed in the political market place. Its getting trumped by the effect of SHS on employees.
Your arguments are being made that the SHS isn't really harmful and that the owners rights are being violated and the politicians are not buying.
You need a new tactic. The current ones have failed. Until you get a new set of tactics the steam roller will keep in rolling town by town and state by state.
Government has carte blanche where that's concerned.
What effect? Prove your point or STFU.
Ah, but non-smokers have increased their presence to counter the loss of yours. You don't actually want your brand new clothes to smell like stale smoke, do you? I certainly don't want mine to stink.
They just extended it in Austin. They've had the same thing in restaurants for over ten years, as I discovered on my honeymoon. Needless to say we left after one day to go where free people lived, and would never go there again.Thanks for the info. I haven't been to Austin in years and years. Leave it to the shoddy media to bill it as a . . .strict new smoking ban in the city's restaurants, bars and music venues.
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.