Smoking Bans: good idea, or bad?

5-1 CITY COUNCIL VOTE
SMOKING BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACES IN COLUMBUS
Published: Tuesday, June 29, 2004
NEWS 01A
By Mark Ferenchik
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Opponents of the citywide smoking ban that the City Council passed yesterday are considering turning to Columbus voters to stop it.
The group of businesses and organizations opposing the ban, the Coalition for Customer Choice, could use a petition drive to put a referendum before voters on Nov. 2, said Andy Shaffer, a coalition member and vice president of sales for Shaffer Services.
"That's the great American way,'' said Shaffer, whose company supplies cigarette and other vending machines to bars and restaurants.
In a packed council chambers, the City Council voted 5-1 -- with Councilman Richard W. Sensenbrenner voting no -- to ban smoking from public places and businesses, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and bingo parlors. Councilman Michael C. Mentel was absent because of the death of his mother.
An amendment that Councilman Kevin L. Boyce proposed will allow smoking in private clubs with liquor licenses, such as veterans clubs.
That means some bar owners could consider privatizing their establishments as defined by state law to try to get around the ban.
In another amendment, business owners will get a warning letter the first time they are reported for an offense. After that, the fine will be $150 per incident.
City Attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr. said he expects offenders to be cited immediately or sent a ticket. The law will go into effect Sept. 26.
Councilwoman Charleta B. Tavares, who introduced the legislation this month after the group SmokeFree Columbus put the original proposal together, said the law is in the best interest of the community's health.
"Many people are very angry,'' she said. "Emotions must take a back seat to what is fair and equitable.''
Tavares suggested the council in the future could exempt smoking rooms with ventilation systems -- something bar and restaurant owners wanted -- if the technology improves.
Councilwoman Maryellen O'Shaughnessy said she was disturbed at how quickly the legislation was pushed through, but in voting for it said, "All we're asking smokers to do is go outside.''
Jacob Evans of the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association said the 90-day grace period gives the ban's opponents some time to dig up other proposals to present to council so it can consider a less-restrictive law.
But Shaffer said the group also will consider a referendum.
If that is to happen, the opponents would have to collect 5,060 valid signatures of registered voters in 30 days.
The Franklin County Board of Elections would have to verify the signatures. The issue must be submitted by Aug. 19 to make the November ballot.
Before yesterday's vote, Shaffer said he remained optimistic his group could persuade enough council members to torpedo the ban. But he called a meeting with Tavares before yesterday's vote "pathetic.''
"It felt like Earle Bruce going up to Michigan after he was fired,'' Shaffer said. "Councilwoman Tavares is completely oblivious to our economic concerns.''
Tavares said she's interested in the impact on businesses, but added, "This community is made up of more than just businesses.''
"People must be stopped from dying from secondhand smoke,'' said Sam Gresham, president and chief executive of the Columbus Urban League and a SmokeFree Columbus leader.
Another SmokeFree Columbus leader, Marie E. Collart of the Central Ohio Breathing Association, said businesses will gain customers once people discover smoking is gone. She suggested that SmokeFree Columbus could help market those restaurants and bars.
Sensenbrenner, who offered amendments to exempt bars and businesses with ventilation systems, said the council should have taken more time to come up with compromise legislation.
"Too many of our citizens have their life savings tied up in these establishments,'' he said.
Nationwide, 1,700 cities, including Toledo, and six states, including California and New York, have smoking restrictions.
Originally, SmokeFree Columbus didn't want its proposal to be amended at all. But Dr. Rob Crane, a SmokeFree leader and an Ohio State University physician, said he was comfortable with the changes.
Now Columbus waits to see which suburbs will come onboard. Bexley, Dublin, Grandview Heights, Grove City, Powell, Upper Arlington and Worthington all will consider public smoking bans soon.
Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman will be watching what those communities do. If the suburbs allow more exemptions, then Columbus officials might have to do the same, said Mike Brown, Coleman's spokesman.
Brown said he expects Coleman to sign the legislation in the next two days.
Yesterday, Shaffer said that when he had lunch with Crane a month ago, Crane asked Shaffer for his group's help in swaying the suburbs to adopt bans.
"I took it as very arrogant," Shaffer said.
"I said, 'Dr. Crane, with all due respect, this game's not over yet.' ''
--
Illustration: Graphic , Photo appeared in newspaper, not in the archive.
Photo caption: (1) Graphic
(2) CHRIS RUSSELL | DISPATCH
Lisa Dublin, an employee of Traditions Tavern in Columbus, protests against the smoking-ban ordinance outside Columbus City Hall. The City Council passed the ban last night.

************************************************** ***



Loophole gives bars flicker of hope
Taverns that become private, nonprofit clubs can get exemption from smoking ban
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Mark Ferenchik
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

FRED SQUILLANTE | DISPATCH
Night bartender Sande Howard, far left, enjoys a smoke before her shift at New Point Cafe on the South Side. Howard fears that a smoking ban will decrease her tips.
So you want to transform your corner bar into a private club to skirt Columbus’ new smoking ban.
It’s not as easy as saying, "Pay two bucks in dues and light up."
First, your bar must be a notfor-profit organization.
Second, your bar must be a private club as defined by state liquor laws: a group organized "for social, recreational, benevolent, charitable, fraternal, political, patriotic or athletic purposes" in which members prepay regular dues.
The club also must hold a D-4 liquor permit if alcohol is to be served. A D-4 permit can be issued to a club that has existed for at least three years and that will serve members only. A permit won’t be issued until elected officers of the club file with the state a statement that the club has dues-paying members.
When the City Council approved the smoking ban Monday night, it inserted an amendment that exempts private clubs from the ban, but only if no nonmembers are present.
Still, city officials expect bar owners will test the law, which goes into effect Sept. 26.
"I’m sure, as in any new effort, there will be an effort to find out how not to be regulated," city attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr. said.
Setting up as a "bring-yourown-booze" joint wouldn’t help, either, Pfeiffer said, because the law prohibits smoking in clubs where alcohol is served — not just sold — unless they have a D-4 permit.
"I think it would be looked at as a fraud," he said.
But Councilwoman Charleta B. Tavares, who led the council’s drive for the ban, said, "Never underestimate the deviousness of those who want to get around the law."
In creating the private club exemption, officials discussed the "Taverns for Tots" case in Toledo, Tavares said. The bar owners created a charity to take advantage of a loophole allowing smoking in private clubs and at private social gatherings. The bars charged a lifetime membership fee of $1 and promised to donate 1 percent of sales to charities to dodge the ban. A judge ruled that the organization was bogus.
Tavares and Pfeiffer said they believe the new law was written tightly enough so a group couldn’t get away with something like that.
Pfeiffer said he presumes notfor-profit means the group is trying to "meet your expenses and that’s it."
Bar owner Diana Minshall, 61, said she can’t afford to become a private club. She calls her New Point Cafe at 2631 Parsons Ave. on the South Side a "pool-shooting bar" that will lose customers because of the ban.
"They drink their beers, they smoke their smokes," said Minshall, who has owned the bar for 17 years.
Councilman Kevin L. Boyce proposed the private club amendment so groups such as the Merrymakers Club on E. Spring Street, the Cavaliers Club on N. 17 th Street and veterans groups could allow smoking, because those clubs are closed to nonmembers and don’t sell to the public.
The new law does not require private clubs to register with the city, Pfeiffer said.
A church could allow smoking at a Las Vegas night fund-raiser, Pfeiffer said, but only if the crowd was restricted to church members. Attendees could drink and smoke only if the church held a D-4 permit.
Minshall said the law amounts to class discrimination.
"We’re not the only south-end bar that caters to this clientele," she said. "They’re blue-collar workers."
--



Copyright © 2004, The Columbus Dispatch

Well, I'm for smoking bans. I've heard the doom-and-gloom reports from pubs et al saying that their businesses will fail with such a law, but of course they will not fail, for people who like pubs and the like will always come back in the end, simply because the draw of a pub is something other than smoking, and the alternative is to stay at home.

Vancouver has succeeded very well with their anti-smoking law. The bottom line is, nobody should have to be exposed to second-hand smoke, neither the paying customer nor the employee. The heath risks for employees in smoking establishments has been well-documented.

Smoking bans have come here-- NC tobacco country!

Mostly, they're voluntary, but there has been a huge groundswell of cooperation. Most places here (over 50%) are now completely smoke free.

Now get ready for this-- NC which now has no tobacco taxes, will probably see a 75 cent per pack tax! Down here, that qualifies as an earthquake!

I'm glad I live in Montreal. People should ease up a bit, we only live once after all. Who cares if you die at the age of 70-80 instead of 90-100. I just don't see the difference. I hope, I won't see the day when tabacco is banned in Montreal

Btw, I'm a smoker :P

Well, if you're a smoker, then by all means you should have the right to smoke. However, why should a non-smoker have to knock off ten years because of your habit? It makes no sense.

Well, I agree. We have a right to smoke, and you have a right not to smoke. But bars, should remain a smoking area. And for Restaurants, they should be obligated to put in "real" smoking area's for smokers. With a good system that evacuates the air.

Why should bars remain a smoking area?

And what of the employees who are exposed to the smoke? One could say they can work somewhere else, but that is not always an option. Should their health suffer because they must take such a job?

I am resisting all temptation to comment.

I'm an ex smoker, though truthfully, smoke doesn't bother me that much, unless I'm in a small room of people puffing away.

I am an ex-smoker as well, although it was over thirty years ago that I smoked. For years I did not mind the smell of smoke and intensely disliked the self-righteous people with their cheap theatrics, coughing et al at the smell of smoke. In fact I used to be a big champion of smokers' rights.

I still hate the unnecessary cheap theatrics, but now I do firmly believe a non-smoker should be able to frequent establishments without undue risk to their health. The fact is, second-hand smoke is dangerous to long-term health.

If there are non-smoking bars and smoking bars, the non-smoking bars suffer loss of business and therefore rarely stick with it. If ALL bars are non-smoking, then this is not an issue. Business slumps temporarily but soon resumes, because as I said before, in the final analysis people do not go to pubs to smoke, they go for the ambience, the camaraderie, the booze.

I'm laughing-- literally!

"they go for the ambience, the camaraderie, the booze." That's about as succint as it gets!

The issue of employee health is interesting. Certainly they have the right to work in a safe environment, but, what if they took the job knowingly? Is it fair to the employer to have to change the terms of the 'contract'?

Just a thought to ponder. Can of worms, I think.

Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for employees. Under our labour laws, no contract allows an employer to expose his employees to harmful chemicals without adequate protection. In the case of a pub owner, the employer is knowingly putting his staff at risk, and he should be accountable.

As I said before, people are often forced to take jobs irrespective of health safety standards. It is a reality amongst the working poor. Should these people not be protected? Should the poor be stuck with the dangerous jobs because the better-off can afford to say no? No, I think it is wrong for the working poor to become sick from the fumes of others simply because they are, by circumstances, forced to take such a job.

WCB had the right idea a few years back, to go after employers for health-related problems of employees exposed to smoke at work.

I'm not disagreeing-- quite the contrary.

The question I have is that if an employee knowingly takes the job, etc-- can that contract be nullified? Smoking is after all, legal.

By the way, what was the result of the WCB board suit? Did they win or lose?

Hey haggis, check this out.

Scroll a third of the way down to see Frum's take on the election. Tell me what you think.

--

Another one, haggis.

This ought to get you going!

oops!

--

Geez, Research, you are determined to single-handedly keep me glued to this computer!! This is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way....

Okay, a couple of things, first off think of any company that deals in legal but toxic chemicals. They are required to provide safety gear for employees in order to keep them safe from the toxic chemicals. Otherwise, they are liable. How is smoking any different? It produces toxic fumes that, although legal, are harmful to the employees. Should these pub owners somehow be exempt from the usual laws that demand the protection of employees?

The WCB case was dropped, after a huge furor. It would have been a good thing, but lawyers managed to find a loophole and out it went. It will be back in force, though, given time, for employee health is a legitimate side of the smoking issue.

The other, gun control: how was the conclusion drawn that gun control doesn't work?

Stuck to a computer?

Think Danny Devito and AHNOHD.

Ok, we're in agreement. Seems to me the next logical step would be to make second hand smoke deemed toxic, legally.

From then, it becomes fair game.

As for gun control, Im for it-- well, a gun registry, actually.

I just wanted yourtake on the article.

Actually, that is exactly what the WCB was trying to do, they wanted to make second-hand smoke deemed toxic. I think in the end they will prevail.

As for the gun control article, I think you should start a thread on gun control! I didn't want to dwell too long on that topic in this thread, since it might sabotage the original theme. Please do post a new thread with that article as the lead-in, it would be a good starter.

I'm all for banning smoking in all public places. Absolutely. Like Haggis said, if everywhere was the same then no single business would suffer losses of income.

I was thrilled when I moved to BC and went out to the bar one night and discovered that I wouldn't be going home smelling like smoke and my eyes wouldn't be burning the next morning and my throat wouldn't be sore. It was heaven.

I've spoken to some of my smoker friends here and they said at first it was annoying to them to have to go outside to smoke, but they got used to it and now it's not an issue at all.

I really don't understand why people try to make such a big deal out of this. You can't smoke in airplanes or in the mall, and you spend hours in those places. Can not being able to smoke for the hour or two of dinner really be that bad?

Personally, I think it's bad law in a good cause. It's a good cause, but the law sets a bad precedent. I hope it's challenged in court, and struck down.

Okay, but why do you feel that way? In what way does it set a bad precedent to enact a law to protect the health of people?

So where do you stop?

It becomes the 'slippery slope' argument.

Do we ban pregnant women from having a glass of wine, because they may have more?

Do we outlaw restaurants because they may use more butter than they should in the sauces?

Do we stop keeping score at peewee hockey because the losing side may feel bad? (dont laugh-- some soccer leagues here actually DO THAT!)

I guess it boils down to weighing the needs of the public vs the freedom of the individual

Well said.

I also think that one should pay for medical attention if they do smoke and come down with respiratory complications.


Here is a little article that I found:
"Since the 1957 report suggested a link between smoking and lung cancer, the connection has been firmly established.
Lung cancer now kills 20,000 people every year and health experts predict that life-time smokers have a 50% chance of dying of a smoking-related illness in middle-age.

It is also been established that tobacco smoking causes 25 different diseases including heart disease and strokes.

By 2020, the World Health Organisation expects the worldwide death toll to reach 10 million, causing 17.7% of all deaths in developed countries.

There are believed to be 1.1 billion smokers in the world, 800,000 of them in developing countries. "

>>Do we outlaw restaurants because they may use more butter than they should in the sauces?

Eating heart-attack food does not affect the circumspect diner at the table next to you who orders vegetarian.

>>Do we stop keeping score at peewee hockey because the losing side may feel bad?

I don't see the correlation. There is no reason to protect, by law, anybody from getting their feelings hurt. There IS reason to legally protect people from chemical warfare which is, in an overly dramatic sense, what happens when non-smokers are heavily exposed to second-hand smoke.

Are you saying that there should not be a law to protect the health of employees? That employees, usually the working-poor that are working minimum wage, do not deserve protection against a kbown health hazard?

I guess it boils down to weighing the needs of the public vs the freedom of the individual[/quote]

Yes! Freedom of the individual to be able to go about their business and pleasure without breathing in toxic fumes. I agree.

Sorry haggis-- perhaps I was obtuse.

We are talking about regulating behaviour, for health, mental health and so on.

I didnt mean to imply the obvious difference between the behaviours you pointed out.

For example, drinking to excess can lead to drunk driving-- and that too, is a phblic health hazard.

As to restaurants, unhealthy diets lead to heart disease ond obesity, also public health hazards.

I am in concurrance with you re smoking and workers health.

Im just not sure where we stop-- or even IF we can stop. There needs to be a new mechanism, I think.

The slippery slope argument isnt usually relevant to the case at hand-- its the 'down the road' Im looking at.

Bright side is the Court of Appeals.

Down side are the lawyers.

Hello my evil twin.

>>We are talking about regulating behaviour, for health, mental health and so on.

I do not feel that we are talking about regulating behaviour. Are we not talking about an environmental issue on one hand - a pollution - and the health and safety of employees in the workplace? Regulating behaviour would be to create a blue law that banned smoking for the safety of the smoker. This, however, is a law to protect the innocent, the non-smokers and the workers.

>>For example, drinking to excess can lead to drunk driving-- and that too, is a phblic health hazard.

Yes, and it is regulated, just as smoking in public places should be.

>>As to restaurants, unhealthy diets lead to heart disease ond obesity, also public health hazards.

Yes, but that is still another story, is it not? I can eat an unhealthy diet. It might hurt me, but it isn't going to hurt you except, possibly, your pocketbook at tax time.

>>Im just not sure where we stop-- or even IF we can stop. There needs to be a new mechanism, I think.

What would that mechanism be? What would be an easier pill to swallow?

>>Down side are the lawyers.

Downside is ALWAYS the lawyers, the bastids.

OK bro (you were always moms favorite)

I am in agreement re second hand smoke.

It all boils down to the mechanism.

The law would have to SPECIFICALLY relate to second hand smoke (maybe under environmental protections?)

By the way, that drinking is regulated hasnt stopped drunk driving, so...you get the rest

My interst was picqued when you referred to unhealthy diets at tax time. As with smoking, there is an argument to be made as to why I should not be responsible to pay for your choice in unhealthy living. Healthcare is a BIG bite out taxes, right?

>>OK bro (you were always moms favorite)

Well sure, 'cause I was a MUCH nicer kid, after all. 8-)

>>By the way, that drinking is regulated hasnt stopped drunk driving, so...you get the rest

But it slowed it down and resulted in a greatly increased public awareness of the dangers inherent in excess drinking. Thirty years ago, for a small example, there was no such thing as 'dry grad', for example.

>>My interst was picqued when you referred to unhealthy diets at tax time. As with smoking, there is an argument to be made as to why I should not be responsible to pay for your choice in unhealthy living. Healthcare is a BIG bite out taxes, right?[/quote]

Oh boy, that complex little gem of an issue! Compared to the smoking issue, it is kind of like understanding eternity as opposed to, say, solving the Rubic cube.

So, YOU start. 8-)

No, you were moms fav because you wore that cute little sailor suit and hat. Be nice-- or I'll posy those naked pictures of you in the bath tub (its genetic--mothers MUST take naked pics in tub).

OK, as for drinking and driving-- its still a major issue. Seat belts have cut down on fatalities, but its still a cause for public concern.

Now, the question of being 'our brothers keeper' so to speak, well, that is effectively what separates us from 'lower' animals. By reason of reason or morality, we do extend ourselves-- otherwise we'd say, no hospitals, let natural selection run its course.

That by the way, is why Im against the death penalty, tough as that is at times.

Now that Ive taken care of that, you can conquer Rubic's Cube.

Whoa, what's up with this? We are in total agreement about the health issue AND about the death penalty. 8-) This is just too much, whatever happened to decent sibling rivalry?

I never find it tough to be against the death penalty, though. It never, even with the worst criminal, seems like any answer at all.

PS The sailor suit, you know, had pockets, lots of 'em. In those pockets was the dozens of treats AND money that mom gave ME and not YOU. She didn't want you to know, poor little bugger.