Feed‘Smoke Free Peoria’ blowing some smoke of their own
June 30, 2006 in The Wire
Here are the words atop the petition the newly organized “Smoke Free Peoria” coalition is going to pass around:
“Whereas:
Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the country, killing approximately 65,000 nonsmokers in the U.S. each year.
Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 69 that cause cancer.
Secondhand smoke is proven to aggravate asthma and increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases in children and adults.We, the undersigned, believe that we have the right to breathe smoke free indoor air and that to protect the health of our community, Peoria, workplaces, including restaurants and bars, must be smoke free.”
The U.S. Surgeon General recently released a report that suggests or confirms a wide range of health problems related to second-hand smoke. It would be foolish to argue that second-hand smoke isn’t bad for you. But I’ll also note that while the report also urges additional restrictions on public smoking, it also notes that partial bans don’t seem to work. Thne report doesn’t offer any explanation as to why they didn’t nor does it offer any rational explanation as to why a full ban would work.
Folks, banning something doesn’t make it go away. All it does it allow for the government to punish those who engage in such behavior. And this nation has a history of trying to regulate private behavior for the public’s own good. The result is usually a colossal failure like Prohibition or the massive law enforcement and judicial bureaucracies that have grown to fight the War on Drugs.
What I see happening is this: There’s only a very small chance an ordinance banning smoking in bars and restaurants could pass the Peoria City Council. There are too many people on the council who are friends and political allies of people in the restaurant and bar business.
One theory I’ve heard could only be described as an unofficial ban enforced by the Peoria City/County Health Department. Let’s say an inspector comes in and notices a dirty ashtray, perhaps one currently being used by a patron. Nothing is stopping an inspector from deciding to detect points from a restaurant’s score (they’ve done it for stranger reasons, folks).
Sound silly? Then consider that the PCCHD is up to its eyeballs in involvement in Smoke Free Peoria. The minutes of the June 14 meeting of the Coalition for a Smoke Free Peoria County show that the meeting was held at the PCCHD office on North Sheridan. Of the 15 people listed as attending, four are employees of the health department. They are Brittany Swindler, Jennifer Hendry, Kelly Bay and Hla Phone.
Other attendees includes Elliott Murray, listed as a “public citizen”; Kay Sykes of AdCo; Kerri Viets, Tazewell County Health Department; Kathy Riley, OSF Wellness; Carrie Otto, Kathy Drea and April Bailey of the American Lung Association; Patti Bash, Hult Health Education Center; and Kelli Evans, Elise Oaks and Sherah Mattimore-Knudson of the American Cancer Society.
The health department building was also the site for “smoke-free ordinance training” on June 28. A person from the American Cancer Society’s national office with experience in many smoke-free campaigns across the nation lectured the group in what to expect from the opposition.
There’s also concern that the the Smoke-Free Peoria Coalition might be overstating the support for a smoking ban among other Peoria organizations. In one email I saw, a small group of Peoria organizations was listed as willing to “sign on.” A person very involved with at least one of those organizations says that is definitely not the case, and traced the error to a conversation with a coalition member as to whether or not the organization is “smoke free,” which it is because of the children they serve. The group will take no position.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
PA Restaurant Association Backs Clean Indoor Air
Employee health is too important to ignore
Parts excerpted from Channel 4 Action News, 6/28/06
PITTSBURGH — The Pennsylvania Restaurant Association is changing its position and will support the elimination of smoking in the workplace, including bars, restaurants, casinos, offices, and manufacturing plants.
For years, restaurant owners have fought to keep smoking. But now, after a contentious debate, they’re having a change of heart. It all comes back to employees, bartenders and waitstaff, who are sometimes exposed to constant secondhand smoke, said restaurant association president Kevin Joyce.
“The recent studies concerning hospitality employees and the incidence of lung cancer and heart disease related to secondhand smoke… it’s hard to not look at that evidence,” said Joyce.
On Monday, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona released a report that found nonsmokers increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent if exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work.
Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause immediate harm, the report found. “The debate is over. The science is clear,” said Carmona. “Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard.” The only way to protect nonsmokers is to eliminate smoking indoors, according to the surgeon general’s report.
“Our employees are important to us, and their health is important to us, and the cost of their health insurance is important to us,” said Joyce.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I hate to go to restaurants that are filled with smoke. It makes me sick, I have asthma trouble. Don’t like it at all.
That being said, why should there be a law against it? If people don’t want (like say, me) to eat where others are smoking they won’t come. And then the restaurants that allow smoking will be frequented by people who are OK with that and the market will sustain restaurants that choose (in order to get business from people like me) not to allows smoking.
Unnecessary regulation just bugs me. Down with smoking but don’t legislate it!
June 30th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
From what I’ll call an engineering standpoint, if the smoker doesn’t always get lung cancer from a 100% concentration, how can the non-smoker get sick from a tiny fraction of the orginal smoke?
June 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
There is more than just cancer involved. My grandma has fibrosis of the lungs from my grandfather’s habit (who DID die of lung cancer).
My other grandfather has COPD (the new name for Emphysema). He was diagnosed with this (and smoking as the cause) 25 years after he quit. My greatgrandfather suffered for many years with emphysema brought on through smoking.
It’s not just cancer.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I’m a smoker and the smell of smoke while I am eating is enough to make me gag. I am all for smoking being banned anywhere food is served because really who wants to eat with their family at some smoky restaurant. As for bars, I think it should be left up to the owner. The difference: I don’t take my kids to a bar.
And if the next question is, what about taverns that serve food….make them non-smoking only during the times when meals are actually served since most places have set times for that. Note I said meals, not some drunk ordering a Butch’s pizza while waiting to sober up at 2am.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I would dispute the causal connection between your grandfather\’s smoking and her fibrosis - that is unless someone can show me that fribrosis can ONLY be caused by 2nd hand smoke. If a guy dies at 95 from heart disease and he was a lifelong smoker, what conclusions can you draw from that? None, I say.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Vonster,
First, let me say that I am a smoker, so this is not propaganda. The danger of secondhand smoke is that much of it is unfiltered, as it comes from the burning end of the cigarette, not the end where the smoker inhales.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Vonnie, have a little tact, please.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Vonster and Anon: This debate will go nowhere but down. Anon has good points, so does Vonster.
Some people smoke for their entire lives and never have any complications, some smoke for 5 years and end up with lung cancer. The truth is that the data is so skewed that the best they can say is that there is SOME connection between smoking and lung-related illness.
That doesn’t change the fact that legislating smoking laws is an overreach of government. I support everyone who chooses not to go someplace because of smoke. I also support the rights of a restaurant owner to allow or deny smoking. It should be their choice, not some city or local council. As long as the purchase and use of tobacco is legal in the United States, the arguments to the contray are weak at best.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Champaign-Urbana just recently passed smoking ban ordinances and it was a long and bitter campaign. I was a part of it. Go to http://www.cu-smokefree.org to look at the archive of info. The Alliance began with most of the City Council opposed and then a majority formed consensus behind this issue. Most residents do support a public smoking ban.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Champaign American, if so many residents support a public smoking ban, then I would think there would be a huge market for non-smoking restaurants and bars. Why don’t you open one up and make your fortune? If it’s as popular as you say, other restaurants and bars will surely follow suit. After all, why would they want to lose out on all that profit from this huge anti-smoking block? Before you know it, the whole city will be smoke-free and you won’t have had to use the long arm of the law to accomplish it.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
the causal connection is skewed? read the report from the Surgeon General, not some clinton nanny-stater SG, but Bush’s SG. Cory is correct. And to CJ and others who essentially are saying that bars and restraunts will suffer if not allowed to maintain smoking….all of the independent surveys and the annecdotal evidence from states like NY, Cal and FLA who’ve gone smoke free show that there has been NO loss of business. When government tells you what to do in YOUR home, then thats overreaching. When government tells you what to do in a public place, its called public protection. Why do we have any health regulations if its caveat emptor?
July 1st, 2006 at 4:51 am
Also, remember that second hand smoke is a health hazard to workers who have to breathe it in (waitresses, waiters, etc.) and therefore there are OSHA considerations (e. g., workplace saftey issues).
I remember that in the bad old days, secondhand smoke in the work place (in my case, in a SUBMARINE) got pretty thick at times.
So, there is a balance of rights going on here.
July 1st, 2006 at 5:34 am
I don’t really care what some report says. Being in the restaurant business over 25 years is a ton of field research. What does it tell me? People who smoke spend more money, especially at the bar where there is a much higher profit margain on the product being served. What bar owner wants to give that up? Protecting the general public from smokers. What’s that? I know if I go to the Red Barn on Glen, I know I’m going to smell like second hand smoke for a week, so I don’t go. It’s like anything else, if you don’t like it, don’t go. Hell, would you go to a Chiefs game if you hate baseball? If you think strip clubs are shameful, do you go to Big Als?
I’ve voiced my opinion many times. If the business’s food sales exceed it liquor sales it should be considered a restaurant and be non smoking. If alcohol sales are equal or greater than food sales, like the Red Barn, then it is a bar and the owner should decide.
CJ, I agree with you. There are several independent restaurants in Peoria that have made it. Rhythm Kitchen, Panache and others. But it is a hard sell. How many true, independent smoke free BARS are there in Peoria?
Oh, I don’t smoke. Never have.
July 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm
I, being a person who strongly oppose any form of government over reaching, am very torn on this issue. I do believe that in America any type of private enterprise should be free to set thier own rules regarding how they run their business within the confines of their establishment. I also agree with Ollie as there more than likely could be some OSHA issues regarding work place safety, but yet again we are a free society and we all can choose whether or not we work in a place that is full of second-hand smoke. The choice is ours and ours alone.
The solution wouldd seem to be what has been stated here, that businesses that are classified as restaurants should be smoke free while taverns, bars, etc should be given the choice. Restaurants are geared more towards families and not everyone in the family (children) is capable of making the right decision regarding there health. While patrons of bars, taverns, etc are aware of the choice they are making.
I am a smoker and personally I don’t want to eat in a restaurant full of smoke with my family. I support a smoking ban on businesses based upon classification only and oppose any type of “blanket” ban. Personally as a smoker, I would rather smoke outside in the open air than in a confined space, but hey…. this is just my humble opinion.
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 am
I always thought that the left was scared of “Big Brother”. Smoking bans are a sign of government interfering in everyday life. This is “Big Brother” in sactioned actioned by a minority.
Now, I’ll go as far as to say that 2nd hand smoke causes health issues. But government, at any level, coming in to a privatly owned enterprise and saying waht they can or can not allow in regards to a legal product is wrong.
If you don’t want to visit an establishment, for ANY reason, and pay attention Champaign American (of which the latter part I highly doubt), DO NOT VISIT THAT ESTABLISHMENT!!! It is really that easy. Let people be and quit complaining!!
Brandon
September 6th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Chef Kevin said it best… money comes before the well being of others.
My non-smoking friends spend PLENTY of money at the bars so I have to choose not to hang out with them when they go to the bars (which is all the time) because I don’t like to reek of smoke or add more toxins to my already stressed out body? That’s not a fair choice.
Sometimes people don’t make smart decisions, like criminals. That’s when the government has to step in. How about the age limit to drive… is that unnecessary government regulation too or are they concerned that not everyone would make the right decision and could possibly injur innocent people? Should we all not drive too because drunk drivers should be free to drive as stupidly as they want?
Its time our society started thinking about the well being of others and being less selfish.