Two Weeks ago I
reported about opposition to smoking bans that is beginning to assert
itself across the USA in
Some Legislators Get It About Smoking Ban's Negative Impact.
Since that publication new events have developed and many folks have
made their views known. All of the information indicates that the
intrusion of smoking bans into the daily lives of consumers and small
business owners is meeting increased resistance. In this commentary I
discuss many of those activities and provide first-hand information
about the views of many involved. Given the acceleration of opposition
to the bans it seems worthwhile to post an update about what is going on
in several states.
Radio Listener Background Information About ETS
When this work is posted on Tuesday February 20, 2007 I will be
appearing on the Chuck Baker Show, KKKK 1580 AM, Colorado Springs. The
subject will be smoking ban opposition by the Coalition for Equal Rights
in Colorado. The below references concerning Environmental Tobacco Smoke
(ETS) are provided for easy access by listeners on that show. The links
may also prove to be useful to Forces readers.
1.
Summary of 16 Important Points About Environmental Tobacco Smoke
provides an overview, links to
publications, and excerpts from many important documents about ETS. For
those interested in exploring that subject through additional text a
link is provided to a larger work published on the subject. The sources
cited in this work include our federal courts, the U.S. Occupational
Health and Safety Administration, Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, U.S. Department of transportation, and several studies about
ETS (including a study of 17 Australian hospitality establishments.)
2.
Opposing voices within the tobacco control advocacy group concerning
claims about ETS are also important. Two important views are presented
below:
“Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between
environmental tobacco
smoke and tobacco related mortality, although
they do not rule out a small effect. The association between
exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke and coronary heart disease and lung
cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”
(Underline added.)
Even those in the tobacco control movement do not agree with many of the
extremist conclusions about the allegedly deadly health risks of tobacco
smoke.
“An
article in the current issue of JAMA (Journal of the
American Medical Association), reporting on the recent Surgeon
General's review of the health effects of secondhand smoke, brings to
the forefront the controversy over whether the Surgeon General
misrepresented the science in his public communications surrounding
the report's release (see: Kuehn BM. Report reviews secondhand smoke
risks: some scientists question risk level. JAMA 2006;
296:922-923). The controversy stems from the press release and other
ancillary materials released by the Surgeon General to accompany the
report itself.”
It
becomes apparent that those who rely on the recent U.S. Surgeon
General’s report to support smoking bans face a daunting task when it
comes to proving up credible evidence for such punitive measures.
Which brings us to a
troubling question. If our federal courts have eviscerated the December 1992
EPA report on secondhand smoke, OSHA has rejected the material risk
claims in that report and refused to promulgate a nationwide workplace
smoking ban, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI)
has published studies that conclude as-yet-unidentified carcinogens
other than tobacco smoke play a significant role in lung cancer among
non smokers, some tobacco control researchers have concluded the risks
of ETS are weaker than generally believed, the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA) has published a report about
extreme controversy concerning the recent U.S. Surgeon General’s report,
and a doctor who is part of the tobacco control group disputes many of
those activists’ claims, who in their right mind would dare mandate
new smoking bans?
Well, it appears there are many legislators who are so committed to “a
mandate for thee but note for me” that they continue to sponsor and
support smoking bans, despite the enormous body of contradicting
information currently accumulating. Which is what brings to the fore
some current news.
Recent News Overview
From Rocky Mountain News, February 13, 2007, “Panel
Nixes Bill to Exempt Taverns from Smoking Ban,” by April
M. Washington:
But in the Senate, a bid to lift the state smoking ban in
taverns was killed, despite three hours of emotional testimony from more
than 30 bar owners, many of whom cried foul over the vote to exempt
nursing homes. ‘I don't understand the logic of all of this,’ said Bruce
McCaughey, owner of Oasis Lounge in Littleton. He and others blasted
lawmakers for ‘cherry-picking’ who would be subject to the smoking ban
and contended neighborhood taverns should be treated the same as
casinos, which already are exempt, and now possibly nursing homes.
The measure introduced by Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, would have
given watering holes the option of paying an extra $500 for a special
liquor license to allow for smoking. Tochtrop decried the snuffing of
her bill, saying the issue is one of fairness and basic economics. ‘The
Indoor Clean Air Act has not decreased smoking,’ she said. ‘It's just
putting people out of business.’ Opponents, however, argued that the
controversial measure would create a gaping loophole in the act that
went into effect July 1 banning smoking in most workplaces, restaurants,
bars, bingo halls and private clubs. The ban exempts casinos, cigar
bars and smoking lounges at Denver International Airport.“
(Underline added.)
From the Hawaii Reporter, January 30, 2007, “Bill
Reverses
Hawaii’s Smoking Ban
In Bars, Nightclubs and Restaurants,”
by Rep. Colleen Meyer (R-Kaaawa)”
“Honolulu – I drafted and introduced Bill H.B. No. 792 in the
Hawaii State House of Representatives to exempt bars, nightclubs, and
restaurants from the complete ban on smoking, provided that exterior
signage adequately warns the public that smoking is allowed within. I'm
very concerned with the calls my office is receiving about the loss of
revenue that small business owners are experiencing across the state
since the statewide smoking ban went into affect in November. Many long
time business establishments have closed in other states due to the
passage of smoking ban legislation and hundreds of others are limping
along with revenues 30 to 50 percent of what they were before the ban.
This is really a piece of common sense legislation that would allow a
choice for both business owners and their patrons. I was joined by
Representatives Rida Cabanilla, Karen Awana, Tom Brower, Cindy Evans and
Gene Ward in the signing of this bill. . . . A U.S. Supreme court
decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551
(1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because
the public is invited in. So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or
bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop
regulating them out of business.”
From North Dakota’s
KYFR News, February 8, 2007, “Senate
Defeats Smoking Ban,” by Bradi Powell:
But today the state Senate defeated a bill to ban smoking
in bars and truck stops, 30-15. Opponents of the smoking ban said
it`s a person`s choice whether or not to go into a bar. Supporters
say it`s a reasonable intrusion into private business. "I think
this situation clearly a public health issue involved here that warrants
that kind of common sense and reasonable intrusion," says Senator Thomas
Fiebiger of Fargo. "And for that reason I am in support of this bill. I
think that our North Dakota workers should not have to choose between
their job and their health." (Underline added.)
Washington has one of the strictest smoking bans in the nation, since
tobacco control passed I-901 in November 2005. That ban is increasingly
under challenge. See TriCityHerald.com, “Tavern
to Fight Ban on Smoking,” by John Trumbo:
“If and when the smoke clears at the Longbranch Bar and Grill
in Finley, the state's nonsmoking law will have been put to the test and
tavern owner Shirley Britton will have had the day in court she says she
wants. Benton County has filed a civil complaint in Superior Court.
Deputy Prosecutor Kathleen Fitzgerald alleges Britton and her employees
have allowed patrons to smoke in the bar despite a year-old state law --
the Washington Clean Indoor Air Act -- prohibiting smoking inside any
establishment that serves alcoholic beverages. ‘I've retained an
attorney (because) I believe it is a bad law and unconstitutional law,’
Britton said Friday during a phone interview from the Longbranch.”
From South Dakota’s Nashua Telegraph, February 3, 2007, “City
Club Says Smoking Ban Could Cause a Culture Clash” by
Patrick Meighan:
“Two things at the 603
Lounge cause patrons to raise their eyebrows. . . . The second reason
why patrons often do a double take is a little more understandable. That
reason has to do with a bulbous, water-filled glass pipe with a hose and
a mouthpiece attached at the end. Or, two mouthpieces for a double, four
for one that can be used by a party. Often, the response goes something
like, “Huh, is that legal?” It is, because these water pipes, or
hookahs, are used for smoking flavored tobacco. . . . “Even people who
don’t smoke try it, and they like it,” Akeeli said. . . . Hookahs aren’t
like cigarettes. They don’t create a smoke-filled room. The natural
tobacco comes in such flavors as apple, molasses, vanilla and pineapple.
. . . But at least with hookahs the tobacco isn’t laced with chemicals,
Akeeli said. . . . For that reason, he and his co-owners think a
cultural exception for hookahs should be made if the state legislature
passes a law that bans smoking in bars.” (Underline added.)
Above news article present one of the most compelling facts about
opposition to smoking bans: those fighting the bans are not only on
their own but they are also an integral part of a rapidly-expanding
nationwide effort. That opposition is not by Big Tobacco, it comes from
those who are the heart and soul of what makes America great—individual
small business people, everyday citizens, and small groups that
understand the very real threat to our way of that tobacco control
represents.
Views on the Street
Let’s take a brief snapshot tour across just three states and pay
attention to what people have to say.
1.
From Colorado: We begin in Colorado, since that is where the
radio talk show action will be tomorrow.
a.) Allen Campbell, Coalition for Equal Rights:
“From
the statistics we have gathered from Bars, Pubs and Taverns across
Colorado it is clear that business losses are averaging over 30%. This
information was testified to at the Senate hearing of our bill,
SB103, by over 35 owners, not including the support businesses, Disabled
Americans, a casino, a city council woman, the many people who lost
their jobs, the VFW and others.
The
Legislators showed all of these people who came to the hearing from all
over the state little, if any, respect for there testimony and flatly
ignored the disastrous effects they have suffered due to the smoking
ban which was written, passed and signed by a lame duck governor in a
three day blitz over one weekend and, in that process, they also ignored
the people of Colorado who voted against such a ban not once, but
twice.”
b.) Don Smith, Vice Commander Colorado VFW:
“The VFW
along with the American Legion and the DAV are angry and incensed, to
say the least, with the Colorado State Legislature that denied respect
for the armed forces of the United States of America, who we represent.
We have fought and died for the freedom they take for granted and
they reward us by denying that same freedom to us. The smoking ban has
made a mockery of nearly all we stand for, it has taken away our
ability to support many of the public funding programs we took pleasure
in: giving financial help to the communities we work and live in, buying
American flags for all the schools in the state, educational grants,
among many other things. Many of our posts have had to shut their doors,
including the oldest post in the state. This is a travesty and an insult
we shall not forget.”
2.
From Oregon, John Hill, Portland:
“Anti-smoking laws today are targeted toward employees of
establishments where smoking typically takes place. The idea is that we
must protect non-smoking employees and non-smoking patrons from the
second hand smoke effects. Basically, we are asking our government to
step in and protect us from choices other folks make regarding their
health; because after all, this choice now affects us. Again, I
don’t really have a problem with this idea in principle.
The problem I have is that we force business owners to
conform to these laws and avoid exercising our basic rights as
Americans; the right to choose. Patrons and employees have
a choice of where they go to work and where they decide to play. Last I
looked there was no shortage of jobs in the hospitality industry and
certainly no shortage of businesses where smoking is not allowed via the
choice of the business owner. The initial reaction from many
business owners when anti-smoking bills are proposed is that it will
directly affect their revenue because their revenue is based largely on
a specific marketing segment; tobacco users. Anti-smoking bills place
many business owners at risk by implementing a law that allows us as US
Citizens to avoid making choices.”
3.
From Washington, Richard Deditius, Fleet Reserve Association in
Everett:
“As I said earlier, it
is an absolute shame that senior citizens and/or their spouses who
served in the United States military, no longer come in to their PRIVATE
service clubs to relax and fellowship, because they can't smoke!
Since observing the
smoking ban, the Fleet Reserve Association Club 170 in Everett, WA is
down $60,000 from where it would have been at this time, had it been
able to sustain it's average income level prior to the ban.
Also, Initiative 901
was passed saying it would not cost the taxpayers any money to enforce.
Who makes up the lost tax revenue to the State due to business being way
down, or just businesses closing because of the ban? Adding to that,
who paid the wages of the 3 ‘tobacco police’ agents that came to our
club on Tuesday evening after 5:00PM?”
Readers with an interest in Mr. Deditius’ Declaration for a recent case
challenging the Washington smoking ban should see “American
Legion Declaration.”
Closing Thoughts
This is just the beginning. What tobacco control and its Big
Pharmaceutical sponsors believe they have all sewed up and in the bag is
already beginning to quickly unravel. As word of growing opposition
spreads I suspect that tobacco control will be in for the fight of its
life in 2007 to merely breakeven on holding the roll back of bans. Some
would say that tobacco control is in for the fight of life period.
Amen, and pass the ammunition!
Norman E. Kjono
|
|
