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

[kevao]

Until you get a new set of tactics the steam roller will keep in rolling town by town and state by state.

And behavior by behavior. Don't think they'll stop at smoking bans.

[Great Dane]

#5....... And what about the workers in Billiard and Bingo Halls....... What hypocrites.

[Hodar]

Regarding Second Hand Smoke

What can it do to me?

To be blunt - it can kill you.

Across Canada, over 3,000 non-smokers die each year from being exposed to second-hand smoke. Over one in ten of these people die from lung cancer. Most of the others die from heart disease and stroke.

And if it doesn’t kill you, it can make you sick. Second-hand smoke can:

Irritate your eyes, nose and throat
Give you a headache
Make you dizzy or nauseous
Make asthma worse
Increase your risk of respiratory infections, or make them worse. These include:
colds
bronchitis
pneumonia.
The more you are exposed to second-hand smoke, the greater your risk. For example, restaurant workers are exposed to almost twice the amount of second-hand smoke that is in offices where smoking is allowed. Bar workers are exposed to levels that are about 4 to 6 times higher than offices.

http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/faq-faq/tobacco-tabagisme/8e.html

[Great Dane]

"All the evidence points to the fact that business does not deteriorate."

Thats the biggest lie of all, just look at the official downturn in brewer and distiller sales.

[Gabz]

Oh good grief.

Do you know where they get those numbers from? Usually out of thin air.

There is a statistically insignificant elevated risk that SHS will do anything more than aggravate a pre-existing condition, such as asthma, or be annoying.

If you don't want to get wet you stay out of the rain, if you don't want to be exposed to SHS stay out of smoking-permitted establishments. It's called common sense.

[Great Dane]

And these businesses went out of business because a minoritiy of the US population (smokers) can't smoke there? Not because of the downturn in the economy and the massive Reduction In Force that major employers have done? Interesting....

We do not have a downturn in our economy, we have had a 100% ban for nearly two years, business went down with the intro of the ban, and has stayed down, first excuse...... I don't remember, second...... 911, third SARS, fourth will no doubt be mad cow disease.

[Just another Joe]

Ah, but non-smokers have increased their presence to counter the loss of yours.

Can you document that?

[kevao]

Across Canada, over 3,000 non-smokers die each year from being exposed to second-hand smoke.

How do they determine when someone dies of second-hand smoke? Anytime a non-smoker dies of an illness, the illness is attributed to second-hand smoke?

[VRWC_minion]

What effect? Prove your point or STFU.

To date, the arguments on the alledged effect of SHS on employees is trumping the argument on private property. This has happened in DE, NY, CT, Boston, CA and the above cities in Texas.

You may not agree that the argument is true but it is winning. Unless smokers get a new tactic they are creamed.

[Hodar]

Secondhand Smoke Can Cause Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year.
Secondhand Smoke is a Serious Health Risk to Children
The developing lungs of young children are also affected by exposure to secondhand smoke.

Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheeze.
Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation.

Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may also cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year.

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html#Secondhand%20smoke%20can%20cause%20lung%20cancer%20in%20nonsmokers.

See also:
http://www.oma.org/phealth/2ndsmoke.htm
http://www.fensende.com/Users/swnymph/refs/smoke.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/smoking_5-20.html
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/subabuse/tobacc06.htm

Now, I have shown you 5 sources documenting that Second Hand Smoke is harmful. Can you give me more than one reputable site that says that SHS is NOT harmful? Or is it just 'common sense'?

[Gabz]

You keep telling us to get a new tactic. Since you think you are all-knowing in reference to these bans, why don't you tell us what the new tactic should be.


The amazing thing is more of these type bans are being defeated than enacted - they just don't get the same media hype.

[VRWC_minion]

And behavior by behavior. Don't think they'll stop at smoking bans.

It could happen but your assuming that the anti's are only made up of a group that wants to control others. That isn't necessarily true. The group is more varied than that. It includes some folks who do want to control behaviors but these folks alone are not the majority. If they were the laws on other behaviors would also be evident.

In addition to controllers, the current bans are being pushed by true believers that SHS causes harm, folks who just want a smoke free environment and don't care whether SHS causes harm and private restaurants that want a level playing field.

The push for fatty food bans etc just aren't going to motivate the larger majority that are supporting these bans.

[Hodar]

How do they determine when someone dies of second-hand smoke? Anytime a non-smoker dies of an illness, the illness is attributed to second-hand smoke?

There exist a normal distribution of deaths from lung cancer for smokers and another for non-smokers; these life expectancy charts are the bread and butter of insurance companies; and a great deal of mathematics goes into them.

When there exists a disparity in these numbers, contributing factors are found. One of the primary candidates is SHS. Statistically speaking, the number of non-smokers who die of smoke related deaths is lower than that for smokers. (Duh!) The SHS group would be expected to be in the same number range as the Non-smoking group, however it isn't. The diffenence between deaths in the non-smoking group and the smoking group, for non-smokers is attributed to the only common link, SHS.

[VRWC_minion]

You keep telling us to get a new tactic. Since you think you are all-knowing in reference to these bans, why don't you tell us what the new tactic should be.

My best guess is a total makeover for the polite smoker who only rarely smokes in public.

amazing thing is more of these type bans are being defeated than enacted - they just don't get the same media hype.

While entire states go for a ban a few towns that were over zealous exceeded the authority they had or they didn'tike the folks smoking in the streets. These towns didn't change becuase the voters wanted smoking in restuarants or because they were honoring private property rights. Its just a matter of time that either the controlling state law will change to allow other towns to extend a ban and the towns that didin't want street smoking figure out a plan B. Either eay these wins are more strategic retreats.

[Hodar]

Ah, but non-smokers have increased their presence to counter the loss of yours.

Just another Joe: Can you document that?

Sure, no problem....

Retail growth explodes in Pearland area

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/chron10002/1410560

[Gabz]

The EPA was thrown out in court because the data they used was cherry picked to come up with a predeterminined designation - the rest of them use all of the same flawed data.

The WHO completed the largest ever, multinational study on SHS and the only statistically conclusive effect they found is that children exposed to SHS have a 22% less chance of getting lung cancer later in life.

2 weeks ago the British Medical Journal pubilshed a study from California that was based upon more than 30 years of following the same people started by the Cancer Society in the 60s. There is no statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer even after 40 years of spousal and workplace exposure.

The Department of Energy, through it's Oak Ridge National Laboratory had bar and waitstaff where air monitoring devices and determined that working in a smoking-permitted environment exposes them to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.

For a study to be epidemiologically significant the elevated risks should never cross parity (parity =1)and should show an elevated relative risk of at least 2 or better yet 3 to rule out any possibility of confounding factors.

Example. There is an elevated RR of 1.65 for lung cancer in drinkers of whole milk. Are you going to stop drinking whole milk because of this risk, of course not, it's way too low for it to prove drinking whole milk can cause lung cancer. Do you know what the RR for lung cancer is for exposure to SHS, even 20-30 years of daily exposure at home and work? 1.19 - 1.43...........in other words statistically INsignificant.

I am not at my own computer and therefore do not have the links at my finger tips - but believe me I am not pulling this info out of thin air. I'm sure one of the others has links for these and others closer at hand.

[Liberal Classic]

The private property argument is getting creamed in the political market place.

You're right, and this is not the only area in which private property rights are being eroded. Thanks for not helping.

[kevao]

When there exists a disparity in these numbers, contributing factors are found. One of the primary candidates is SHS.

I'm with you on the normal distribution of deaths from lung cancer. But I still don't understand how they determine how many deaths were caused specifically by SHS as opposed to other environmental factors that could contribute to lung cancer.

[Gabz]

Courts overturning bans is not exactly what I call strategic defeats.

[Hodar]

The investigation would be along the lines of: What did the people who did not smoke, but died from smoke-related illnesses have in common? Exposure to chlorine? Work in a bar? Spouse smoke? blah, blah, blah ... until a statistically significant number were found to have a link in common. The common link accepted by the AMA, and pretty much every medical, insurance and govermental agency in the world has been SHS.