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
Are you saying that exposure to SHS worked as a vaccine against cancer? That SHS is a healthy thing to expose children too?
These are courts that said a town overstepped its authority given to it by the state. The courts are not saying that a ban is impossible, just that the town didn't have the authority.
If you think its going to stop there your wrong. The next logical event is the state will do the ban.
Number 1. You cannot prove a negative.
Number 2. As for your five sites.
The first is the debunked EPA study. The federal courts already threw that one out.
The second site - It cites Stanton Glantz, one of the foremost anti-smokers and cites the debunked EPA study.
The third site - It cites no studies and if you look at the sentence, "Infants in the study will be followed for years to see if those exposed to the chemicals have a higher incidence of cancer than nonsmokers' babies.
The fourth site - Look at the next two sentences and tell me when you see the lie
DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: Yes. In fact, they answered the question about passive smoking at the beginning of the study in 1982, and their exposure status was self-reported.
DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: Basically, we took advantage of a 20-year-long ongoing study of women, and about halfway through the study, we sent out a questionnaire asking them whether they were exposed to passive smoking in the home and in the workplace, and then we just sat and waited and saw what happened to them in terms of their heart attack rates.
so we're saying that virtually everything that we know active smoking does to the circulatory system probably the same thing is happening to the bodies of people who inhale second-hand smoke.
We weren't able to precisely estimate just how much of a dose and how long one would have to be exposed to in order to get into increased--situations of increased risk, such as we observed.
The fifth site - Approximately 2 percent of lung cancer deaths each year are thought to be caused by passive smoking.
Now then, when you find scientific proof, that hasn't been debunked, we can talk about the antis having a point.
Finally someone attacking this crap at the correct level.
No it's not. When the sign on the door says "smoking allowed", you have no expectation. It's not unreasonable for you to depart.
What is unreasonable is for you to assert some right which does not exist.
And they just question why you think it's any of your business.
I'm not trying to be difficult when I ask the following question; I'm quite serious. What you're describing sounds quite time consuming and expensive. How much time and money are spent in Canada, for instance, going around interviewing the friends, families and co-workers of all the many thousands of non-smokers who die each year in order to determine what type of exposure they had to all the environmental factors that can contribute to lung cancer? After all, a person's medical records don't tell whether he had a smoking spouse or co-worker, or whether and how often he frequented establishments where he might have been exposed to SHS, or whether he played poker every Friday night in a smoked-filled room, or whether he spent a lot of time cleaning his pool with chlorine, etc. Someone has to do a lot of leg work to find out this kind of information.
Thanks for the link but it seems like this is a result of more people moving to the area than nonsmokers taking up the slack.
I could be wrong but it hasn't happened throughout the rest of the nation in bars, restaurants and music venues.
I think you are missing a key fact. The champions of the Smoke Ban in Austin are band members and waitstaff.
As a customer, I agree with you 100%. I have a choice on what resturant/bar I go to. I am free to go in, or leave. My choice.
However, the waitstaff and band does not. This is their job, they have no choice but to go to work. They are claiming the same protection at the bar, as is given 'at the office'. From THEIR perspective, I think they are correct. My argument has been (and continues to be, in this instance) from the waitstaff's point of view.
Incorrect. The entire argument boils down to people like you asserting that they have rights which do not exist. Like the right to force people to do what you want them to do on their own property. That is the crux, and "conservatives" like you are fascists on the issue.
You are 100%. That's why we have the CDC, EPA, AMA and the tons of other gov't agencies to do this. Also, the insurance agencies have huge mortality tables (spelling?) that deal with this. If you smoke, but your wife does not; your bill will reflect a smoking household, as the insurance's future stability depends on predicting the statistical odds of future claims.
Putting words in my mouth won't work.
I want a business owner to be able to decide whether or not to allow a legal activity to be engaged upon in their business unless, and if, it is scientifically shown that this activity harms a significant minority of the general public.
The employees can choose to work elsewhere. That is the key fact that you are missing/purposly ignoring.
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.