It’s official, you can’t smoke anywhere in PV …..
……Unless, of course, you go to a PV restaurant, then you can go right ahead and fire up!
In case I have not made it clear, I hate cigarette smoke! I was successfully indoctrinated against cigarettes as a kid -- although I enjoyed the aroma of the pipe my father smoked on occasion until he stopped even that about 20 years ago. My children even protest my six or seven cigars a year!
I am NOT a tobacco advocate. I am a sensible legislation advocate.
The council passed what I think is a terrible ordinance after what must have been a record-breaking public participation session that lasted for about 90 minutes Monday night. There was an overwhelming number of non-PV smoking ban advocates that talked about the general evils of cigarettes and second hand smoke. None of which was very convincing for two reasons:
1) THIS ORDINANCE WAS NOT GOING TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE SITUATIONS THAT THEY WERE DESCRIBING. This ordinance was so stripped-down and loaded with limitations that it was never going to impact a measurable community in PV. It specifically exempted restaurants until every city bordering PV goes no smoking in their restaurants. So as other council members patted themselves on the back, I wondered what they were congratulating themselves for …..
2) NO ONE, IN MY OPINION HAS DONE GOOD SCIENCE TO MEASURE EXPOSURE AND RISK. I expect the restaurateurs to be biased towards the status quo. They are anti-ban and they have their statistics and their rationale and I understand that.
However, the smoking ban advocates in all their zeal were not being intellectually honest either. There is a huge difference between A) the established science that smoking causes lung cancer and B) second hand smoke is a health hazard for restaurant workers and patrons. I have had conversations with several pro-ban advocates from KUMed, the county health department, the cancer society, the heart association -- all professionals and experts in the field. But they always start drifting towards the ills of smoking itself, the (in my opinion, imperfect) science that shows the health effects of ETS, the number of “known carcinogens in tobacco smoke” and the mantra, “there is no safe level of second hand smoke”.
One woman, “the Region 7 Administrator for the US Department of Health and Human Services” even claimed that it’s not the job of OSHA to become involved in regulating tobacco smoke in the workplace so it's up to municipalities to do it. WHAT? OSHA regulates hazards to worker safety from noise levels to harmful chemicals and they don’t have jusrisdiction over tobacco smoke!?!?!?! It’s not intellectually, scientifically honest and it hurts their credibility.
Okay, there is no safe level. Fine. Tell me what the dangerous level is. Fresh out of college I worked in a molecular genetics lab for a year. I worked in an environment with known carcinogens and known radioactive isotopes. There is a little device called a dosimeter (they were just film badges back then) that we all wore when we were in the lab that was monitoring our exposure to these agents and when the dosimeters were collected and processed at the end of some period of time my professor knew at what level I had been exposed to these agents.
Do you mean to tell me that we have the technology to create the iPod and the TiVo but there is nothing that can measure how much smoke a restaurant worker is exposed to?
If the health department can establish precisely how hot a restaurant dishwasher needs to be and precisely how cold the fridge needs to be (and if a business does not maintain these standards they can be closed down), why can’t they determine precisely what the level of smoke that is dangerous to restaurant patrons and workers?
The statement, “There is no safe level of second hand smoke,” does not work for me because I believe in the straw that broke the camel’s back. You have to draw a line somewhere -- on one side of the line, you’re okay; on the other side of the line, you’re not. Scientifically, I think that there is a way to calculate at what temperature cooking kills a germ that will make me sick; below that temperature, I am at risk. I think there is a way to determine when I walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke from people standing outside a non-smoking restaurant whether it’s more likely to make me cough or give me cancer.
Since I can successfully and happily avoid tobacco smoke in my recreational environment, I am very confident that everyone else can to. Janie and I choose where we go in public consistent with whether a family atmosphere is present. Cigarette smoke is not family friendly and I don’t feel cheated when we avoid those establishments. I feel that a business owner has missed an opportunity to take my money and I don’t feel discriminated against for that.
I don’t think that private citizens require government intervention in this case. The private interests of a business owner and the private interests of a restaurant patron are essentially equal; each make his or her own business decision.
So, again the only individuals that need intervention are the bartender or waiter. How can we protect them if we assume that there is no safe level yet we allow smoking on restaurant patios and decks? How can we ban smoking outside if we can’t measure the amount of smoke that restaurant workers come in contact with outside?
There is a way to do it but I don’t think either side wants to find a real answer. Like so many other real public safety issues, when it become politicized it’s not about truth it’s about winning.
No one won last night. The ordinance has a huge overlap with the no smoking rules that private property owners have in place and the existing no smoking ordinance that the city already has. NOTHING is changed and nothing advances because we’ve passed this toothless law.
In case I have not made it clear, I hate cigarette smoke! I was successfully indoctrinated against cigarettes as a kid -- although I enjoyed the aroma of the pipe my father smoked on occasion until he stopped even that about 20 years ago. My children even protest my six or seven cigars a year!
I am NOT a tobacco advocate. I am a sensible legislation advocate.
The council passed what I think is a terrible ordinance after what must have been a record-breaking public participation session that lasted for about 90 minutes Monday night. There was an overwhelming number of non-PV smoking ban advocates that talked about the general evils of cigarettes and second hand smoke. None of which was very convincing for two reasons:
1) THIS ORDINANCE WAS NOT GOING TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE SITUATIONS THAT THEY WERE DESCRIBING. This ordinance was so stripped-down and loaded with limitations that it was never going to impact a measurable community in PV. It specifically exempted restaurants until every city bordering PV goes no smoking in their restaurants. So as other council members patted themselves on the back, I wondered what they were congratulating themselves for …..
2) NO ONE, IN MY OPINION HAS DONE GOOD SCIENCE TO MEASURE EXPOSURE AND RISK. I expect the restaurateurs to be biased towards the status quo. They are anti-ban and they have their statistics and their rationale and I understand that.
However, the smoking ban advocates in all their zeal were not being intellectually honest either. There is a huge difference between A) the established science that smoking causes lung cancer and B) second hand smoke is a health hazard for restaurant workers and patrons. I have had conversations with several pro-ban advocates from KUMed, the county health department, the cancer society, the heart association -- all professionals and experts in the field. But they always start drifting towards the ills of smoking itself, the (in my opinion, imperfect) science that shows the health effects of ETS, the number of “known carcinogens in tobacco smoke” and the mantra, “there is no safe level of second hand smoke”.
One woman, “the Region 7 Administrator for the US Department of Health and Human Services” even claimed that it’s not the job of OSHA to become involved in regulating tobacco smoke in the workplace so it's up to municipalities to do it. WHAT? OSHA regulates hazards to worker safety from noise levels to harmful chemicals and they don’t have jusrisdiction over tobacco smoke!?!?!?! It’s not intellectually, scientifically honest and it hurts their credibility.
Okay, there is no safe level. Fine. Tell me what the dangerous level is. Fresh out of college I worked in a molecular genetics lab for a year. I worked in an environment with known carcinogens and known radioactive isotopes. There is a little device called a dosimeter (they were just film badges back then) that we all wore when we were in the lab that was monitoring our exposure to these agents and when the dosimeters were collected and processed at the end of some period of time my professor knew at what level I had been exposed to these agents.
Do you mean to tell me that we have the technology to create the iPod and the TiVo but there is nothing that can measure how much smoke a restaurant worker is exposed to?
If the health department can establish precisely how hot a restaurant dishwasher needs to be and precisely how cold the fridge needs to be (and if a business does not maintain these standards they can be closed down), why can’t they determine precisely what the level of smoke that is dangerous to restaurant patrons and workers?
The statement, “There is no safe level of second hand smoke,” does not work for me because I believe in the straw that broke the camel’s back. You have to draw a line somewhere -- on one side of the line, you’re okay; on the other side of the line, you’re not. Scientifically, I think that there is a way to calculate at what temperature cooking kills a germ that will make me sick; below that temperature, I am at risk. I think there is a way to determine when I walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke from people standing outside a non-smoking restaurant whether it’s more likely to make me cough or give me cancer.
Since I can successfully and happily avoid tobacco smoke in my recreational environment, I am very confident that everyone else can to. Janie and I choose where we go in public consistent with whether a family atmosphere is present. Cigarette smoke is not family friendly and I don’t feel cheated when we avoid those establishments. I feel that a business owner has missed an opportunity to take my money and I don’t feel discriminated against for that.
I don’t think that private citizens require government intervention in this case. The private interests of a business owner and the private interests of a restaurant patron are essentially equal; each make his or her own business decision.
So, again the only individuals that need intervention are the bartender or waiter. How can we protect them if we assume that there is no safe level yet we allow smoking on restaurant patios and decks? How can we ban smoking outside if we can’t measure the amount of smoke that restaurant workers come in contact with outside?
There is a way to do it but I don’t think either side wants to find a real answer. Like so many other real public safety issues, when it become politicized it’s not about truth it’s about winning.
No one won last night. The ordinance has a huge overlap with the no smoking rules that private property owners have in place and the existing no smoking ordinance that the city already has. NOTHING is changed and nothing advances because we’ve passed this toothless law.
posted by Andrew Wang at 10:46 AM
1 Comments:
Bravo, Mr. Wang! I just became aware of this website, and very much appreciate and agree with your comments re smoking and the "ban" in PV. Yes, there is still much to be accomplished concerning this health and social issue, but consider how far we have come. I have lived in PV for over 40 years. When my children were young teens, they bought cigarettes at the gas station that was on 75th St. near Windsor. When I learned of this source I went to the station and complained. I was told that there was no way the under 18 age ban could be enforced. At that time, there was no thought of enforcement. Sadly, my daughters still smoke and I can see the effects on their faces, one with premature aging; on their voices, both much deeper and more masculine than feminine, and on their dental health as both daughters have had treatment for periodontal disease. They are intelligent, educated women, one is even a health care professional. This addiction is insidious. I am happy that your children cannot buy, and have been influenced not to want to buy cigarettes.
Keep up the good fight.
Post a Comment
<< Home