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
No, you are a fascist if you believe that government can rightfully control private property. Fascism is a system that allows property to be privately owned but government controled.
And, it's not YOUR air. Your air is outdoors or on your property, not in my house or my business. That is MY air.
My, my, my aren't we emotional.
I'm very emotional about my rights. And those who would attempt to usurp them. (all at the point of a government gun)
No I am not saying any such thing. I am just stating that the only statistically significant finding from the WHO study was that childhood exposure showed no increased risk for lung cancer at all. The RR stayed below 1 at the top and bottom of the confidence interval.
I was also trying to point out that there are actually guidelines for stastical significance that are employed by the scientific community for things like this and they are being abused or out right ignored when it comes to the subject of SHS.
What I do think is unhealthy for kids is the antiseptic environment some people wrap them up in. Kids need germs to develop their immune systems - I'm not talking about being unsanitary but reality.
I do not remember very many people with asthma when I was growing up - but it seems that more kids have asthma today than ever before (and the government numbers show it) yet less kids today are exposed to any form of SHS than ever before.
I am not saying exposure to SHS prevents asthma - however using the circle logic of the pro-smoking-ban types that could be extrapolated that way. Less SHS exposure = increased asthma rates.
One more thing on the SHS studies, and then I'll get off my soapbox (for the moment) - Often times the funding for these studies get pulled when it appears the data is not going the way the funders want it to or the studies themselves get buried (like the WHO study) or changes are made in the confidence intervals (what the EPA did) or they do a meta-analysis of a number of studies which used different methodology (EPA again) or they just choose to meta-analysis the studies that show what they want it to show (EPA again) and finally in general the media is lazy and will just take a press release at face value without bothering to check out what a study actually says or what the numbers really mean. This happens with the media on nearly every issue, but it is particularly apparent when it comes to SHS.
About 2 years ago I was on a TV program debating the issue with an anti. She brought up the WHO study and I asked her if she had read it, she had not, so I read to her the conclusion of it and she insisted that was my personal interpretation, about 8 months later I was invited back to debate the same anti again. She again brought it up and I again read her the conclusion - she still had not read the study but insisted that she had enough people to interpret it for her so she didn't have to read it. All she was doing was quoting from a press release issued about the conclusions. I had in my hand a copy of the abstract of the study - I was right and she was wrong, she knew it and quickly tried to change the subject.
And when did band members become such self-righteous wimps? They'd be the last people I'd expect to whine about smoking.
Then again, it's the Peoples' Republik of Austin...
Excuse me, it's a perfect anology, wait staff also know if smoking is allowed.
I hate to tell you - but the air inside of a smoke-free venue is only as clean as the air outside the door and every time that door is openned far more harmful substances enter the building.
Think car exhaust..........for example.
Spend an hour in a closed garage with the car running and I will spend an hour in the closed garage next door with a hundred of my smoking friends. We'll discuss it in an hour.
And most bars and restaurants probably have better ventilation systems than the garage.
There's this little issue called the law. It protects workers in the workplace against harmful agents, and unsafe practices. This is covered by OSHA. The particular section you would be interested is here:
http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/human/nolo/faq/1710112D-A8C2-4DBC-97A3E271E3C8A169.html
To say that if someone doesn't like, they should quit and look elsewhere carries little/no weight. The law applies to everyone, whether we like it or not.
But you are ignoring the view point of the waitstaff that chooses to smoke.
As to office workers, many places still permit smoking in private offices or designated smoking lounges in order to accomodate both.
When Delaware instituted it's smoking ban that right was taken away from not only the employees but the business owners as well.
I have seen articles what claim exactly what you said concerning raising kids in too sterile an environment (asthma, allergies, ect). However, I'm not too certain that the link between robust immune and respiratory systems and SHS. Smoking was more popular a few decades ago, and the rates may have been lower. I'm curious what they were 100-200 yrs ago when smoking was rare.
How far the "conservatives" have degenerated into liberalism.
I'm not surprised that you would champion OHSA.
To say that if someone doesn't like, they should quit and look elsewhere carries little/no weight.
Carries no weight with big government lovers. Free people don't embrace fascist dream schemes.
The people who apply for the job know smoking is permitted, if they don't like it they shouldn't apply.
If I only hire people who agree with the smoking, where is your argument then Hillary? The old liberal line that people are too dumb and need your helping hand. Who the hell do you think you are fooling with this BS?
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. The antis backed out of it so fast that the air friction caused hurricane Bertha.
That right there should tell you that it isn't about harm, it's about, "I don't like the smell."
I'm certain that the resturant has a break room, or can provide someplace for the waitstaff to go, when they want to smoke. Just like any other place of work.
From the perspective of the customer, I agree with your point of view. I don't want the gov't mandating smoke-free resturants; as the proprietor should make that decision. However, from the point of view of the employee's, the OSHA laws protect them; just like they protect us.
To buy in to everything officials say, is at best very very naive.
Are you aware that a single jet plane emits as much carcinogens as 3 million cigarettes being smoked at one time?
As to the workplace comments by ANR - OSHA has never set any levels for acceptable workplace levels. Either ANR or ASH (another of the rabid anti-smoker groups) sued OSHA because OSHA would not issue a standard of no acceptable level of SHS exposure. OSHA couldn't because in order to do so they would have to eliminate numerous other things in workplaces, especially restaurants.
The lawsuit was eventually, very quietly withdrawn because OSHA was ready to set a standard of acceptable levels and it would have caused lots of problems for the antis. You see the standards they would have set would permit smoking. So by there being no standard set by OSHA the antis can say whatever they wish to say and no one will argue with them.
I'll bet I can find just as many valid scientific studies that say ETS is statistically insignificant as you can find that say it causes cancer.
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.