After a dozen residents spoke Tuesday during a public hearing on a proposed smoking ban, the Columbus City Council is expected to vote on a ban Dec. 1.
The majority of those who spoke Tuesday were opposed to a ban; although, several business owners asked for a complete ban, if one is enacted at all.
“We’ve been through this,” said John Bean, a stockholder in The Eat With Us Group, which owns several restaurants — including Harvey’s, Sweet Peppers Deli and The Grill — in Columbus, as well as restaurants in Starkville and Tupelo, which both have city smoking bans. “As a business owner, I’m opposed to this ordinance.
“I also understand these things are happening, happening everywhere,” he continued. “(Starkville’s ordinance, which allows smoking on restaurant patios) manipulated the market and allowed some restaurants and bars in town to have an advantage over others. I have one of those (restaurants with no outside patio section), and it very adversely affected that business. In Tupelo, they have a 100-percent ban in all places. I think restaurant and business owners would tell you it’s fair to everyone.”
Asking the council to “ban smoking 100 percent in all public places,” Bean said doing so would ensure a “level playing field for everyone.”
The ordinance, proposed by Ward 3 Councilman Charlie Box, bans smoking in “all enclosed public places,” including restaurants.
However, the ordinance, which largely is modeled after a Tennessee state law, allows smoking in “age-restricted venues,” or bars, restaurants and other establishments which only allow people age 21 or over to enter, and “private clubs,” which restrict access to the general public.
As written, the ordinance allows businesses with three or fewer employees to designate enclosed smoking rooms, inaccessible to the general public.
Additionally, exemptions are provided for “non-enclosed areas of public places, including, open-air patios, porches or decks.”
“I’m in favor of a smoking ban, but in no way in favor of the ban as it’s written,” said William “Bart” Lawrence, a co-owner of The Princess Theater. “I believe the only way for this to be fair is if it is across the board. I don’t believe anything good can come from loopholes and exceptions.”
A decision for the business owners
“Most business owners feel like it’s a decision for them,” said Clyde Rhea, a non-smoker who also is a co-owner of Sey’s Sports Bar and Grill. “I think they should have a right to make their decision, without the government, on their own. People should have enough sense to know whether they should or should not (frequent or own a smoking establishment). That being said, it seems the ordinance is inevitable. But I was going to thank you for having the foresight to not have a rubber-stamp ordinance. I thank you for giving Sey’s the option to be age-restricted.
“A sports bar like ours is different from a regular restaurant,” he continued. “Someone comes to a place like ours to watch a ball game or to sing karaoke and they’re going to stay a while. If they’re a smoker, they’re not going to stay. It will put a business like ours out of business; that’s a fact.”
“I’m opposed to any ordinance banning smoking, because I feel like the customers and business owners should decide that,” said Carl Hogan, who also is a co-owner of Sey’s Sports Bar and Grill. “It should not be forced on them.”
“To sit back and try to convince yourselves it doesn’t have an effect on the economy is to fool yourselves,” he added, showing the council data he said supported restaurants and bars in California and other states were hurt by smoking bans.
Petition of ‘discontent’
Hogan also presented a petition with 428 signatures of residents expressing their “discontent” over the proposed ban.
“The decision should be left solely to the proprietor,” he said, noting he signed a three-year lease for Sey’s based on the failure of the previous ordinance to pass. “But if it’s passed, (the ban) should be the same as those in Tennessee. Without smoking, we will not survive.”
“I can’t see why they can’t just leave it the way it is,” Kenny Wiggins said of Columbus not having a smoking ban. “If people don’t allow smoking, they have a sign (prohibiting smoking). And people (who are bothered by smoke), they don’t have to go there. I think you’d be better off to leave it the way it is.”
“I feel if there’s going to be a ban, it should be 100 percent across the board,” said Brian Roberts, a co-owner of The Princess Theater. “It should be in full, so no one has leverage over another. All of us should have to obey the same rules and there should not be an age restriction that changes it.”
Columbus versus Starkville
“You’ve got to step into the 21st Century,” Bob McGrath, a resident who moved to Columbus five years ago, told the council. “This is ridiculous. Most states have gone no-smoking. Restaurants have, and I don’t see where it’s affected their business.
“All things being equal, five years ago, if Starkville were non-smoking, I would’ve moved there,” he continued. “As new executives come in, they’re going to have a choice between Columbus and Starkville to reside and, believe you me, we’re going to suffer. For the benefit of the general economy, we need to pass a smoking ban. The vast majority of folks want it non-smoking.”
“I respect others that don’t smoke, but I ask it should be the owner’s right whether to allow smoking,” said Ronald Darnell Clowers.
Past efforts
Susan Mackay, who formerly served as Ward 2 councilwoman and spearheaded earlier efforts for the council to enact a smoking ban, said she’s “for an all-out smoking ban.”
About two years ago, the sitting council and an intergovernmental relations committee of city and county officials considered a smoking ban, but the matter never went to a vote.
“I think it’s very important,” Mackay explained. “I suffer from asthma, and the only thing that brings it out is smoke. I would like to go sit at Sey’s and talk to friends, but there’s no way I can go into that establishment at all. It is a quality-of-life issue, and quality of life is very important to all of us. It is important to our community.”
“People smoke,” noted Helen Willis. “They make their choices; they understand the pros and cons of it. All of the people seem pretty content (without an ordinance). Don’t take a person’s civil rights away, a choice to make that decision on our own. We send people to the military to die for our rights, and we’re trying to give them away. The ban, to me, is ridiculous.”
Health concerns
“I have serious health issues, and it’s unfortunate I haven’t found that many places in Columbus that don’t allow smoking,” said Anne Allen. “I don’t have any problem with people having a right to smoke, as long as it doesn’t interfere with my right to breathe. I’m sure there are lots of smokers who aren’t aware they make someone sick. A smoking ban would be a gift to those of us who have health problems.”
“I believe in everybody’s right to smoke,” said Marvin Cole, who suffers from pulmonary lung fibrosis. “I just don’t like them infringing it on me. I had a nightclub 10 years ago, and I used to smoke. I didn’t know then what I do now. The lady had a point about civil rights, but she’s got to look at my rights. Smoke in the parking lot. It just shouldn’t be in a restaurant. I smoked three-and-a-half packs a day and I’m ashamed.”
Kristin Mamrack is a staff reporter for The Commercial Dispatch.
Thomas L | 11/25/2009 8:30:00 PMmark as inappropriate There is absolutely no reason in the world to have smoking bans in this country.
Owners can put a sign in the door"
'This is a smoking venue.'
'This is a non-smoking venue.
This politial solution gives owners and customer's choices.
Isn;t this the American Way??
http://thetruthisalie.com
http://citicensfreedomalliance.org
Tom L | 11/25/2009 8:34:00 PMmark as inappropriate City council were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses
Tom | 11/25/2009 8:36:00 PMmark as inappropriate City council were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses
Greg | 11/25/2009 9:18:00 PMmark as inappropriate The smoking ban isn't just for inside an establishmnet. Smokers like to stand around entranceways to buildings and get that last puff or two in before entering the building, or they like to stand around after exiting to get that cigarette lit up before leaving the area around the entrance of the building. We have drinking and driving laws in this country because some people are not responsible enough on their own to look out for the welfare of others and smoking is the same way. Smokers will argue until their blue in the face (reduced lung capacity from smoking) about how they have the right to smoke whereever they want. many could care less if it bothers you or not. They expect YOU to move away from them.If smoking were necessary to keep people alive, and some smokers think it is, then I'd have no leg to stand on but that is not the case. Smoke outside and away from buildings and others that are not smoking. Vote for an "All OUT BAN ON SMOKING"!
smokedbacon | 11/26/2009 5:00:00 AMmark as inappropriate What is a level playing field in business? Say what? I guess we need to have a fixed menu with all restaurants serving the same food made with the same recipe? Come on folks we have the same KFC as KFC has its call GENERIC MENUE TIME!
What kind of business person would want to be just like everyone else? Kinda of like going along with a crowd mentality? Well its happening in other places as a excuse is a reason? Well Mr. Lawrence I guess while your at the City Council Meeting you ought to ask the City Council to pass a resolution to support same sex marriages as well as you don't want to be left out of the growing trend.
CONCERNED | 11/26/2009 9:40:00 AMmark as inappropriate The ordinance, proposed by Ward 3 Councilman Charlie Box, bans smoking in "all enclosed public places," including restaurants.
The paper fails to mention that ward 3 councilman is also a former american cancer society member. The american cancer society is the ones behind the bans nationally.Hired by the robert woods johnson foundation to be the lobbying group to push these smoking bans. The american cancer society recieves Millions from the robert woods johnson foundation/ johnson and johnson big pharma to push these bans..Johnson and johnson are the makers of smoking cessation drugs,where they profit by bans which are meant to stigmatise smokers and try and force them into quitting. But what has developed is a concerted effort to make prohibition the end game...This country hasnt seen this type of political movement since alcohol prohibition in 1919,where the same made up healthscare studies and radical crazed people pushed to outlaw and criminalize people. History is again repeating itself....Here we are pushing basically JIM CROWE LAWS on our own citizens.....How we digress over time. Do you feel ashamed yet.
harleyrider1978 | 11/26/2009 11:29:00 AMmark as inappropriate Last year, the Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt declared that a ban on smoking in public places "will save thousands of lives". Official estimates assert that 12,000 people a year die in Britain from the effects of passive smoking. In Scotland, a ban on smoking in all public places began in March, following a lead set by the Irish government. The Welsh Assembly is preparing to follow suit. In England, smoking will be banned in pubs, clubs and restaurants from the summer of 2007.
But none of these restrictions is based on convincing proof that passive smoking kills. It is an assertion that owes a great deal to the sanctimonious superstition that there can be no smoke without death. Reputable scientists admit this. On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
He was right not to fret. One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality."
That caused a nasty row. Anti-smoking campaigners condemned the research as "biased" and "unreliable". The anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) declared. "This could be very damaging as it will be used by industry lobbyists to argue against laws to ban smoking in public places and workplaces." And Ash was not alone in being concerned about the threat posed to its ambitions by scientific honesty. The venerable BMJ found itself under attack from all sides.
Publication provoked a barrage of condemnation in which the then BMJ editor Dr Richard Smith was accused of every failing from naivety to active promotion of evil. His accusers demanded that he withdraw the article. To his credit, Smith refused, pointing out that the BMJ exists to publish science not polemic, and that the American study was proper, peer-reviewed science. A robust and persuasive anti-smoker, he replied that although the BMJ was "passionately anti-tobacco" it was not "anti-science". He went on to explain that "the question [of whether passive smoking kills] has not been definitively answered."
Doctors and scientists who make such statements come under extraordinary pressure to withdraw them. Three years later, Dr Smith appeared to be satisfied that passive smoking does kill. Doll was persuaded to emphasise that his lack of concern about secondary smoking was a purely personal perspective. The tragedy, for those who care about truth, reason and scientific method, is that it was not. Profound scepticism about the claim that secondary smoking kills is the only rationally tenable position. Look beyond the lazy political and media consensus that simply assumes that because smoking kills secondary smoking must as well, and the evidence is overwhelming.
When I interviewed her in 2004, Amanda Sandford of Ash acknowledged unintentionally that much secondary smoking science is unscientific. She said: "A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis." In plain English, that means that if secondary smoking were not already the focus of a torrent of moral sanctimony, few reputable scientists would dare to assert that it causes lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other life-threatening conditions with which it is routinely associated.
Dr Ken Denson, a medical professional who is prepared say what others only think, puts it more bluntly: "The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact... All in all, the medical evidence for any deleterious effect of passive smoking is extremely tenuous and it is unlikely that it would ever stand up in a court of law."
A recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reveals that, "In total, 23 studies have been published on [workplace] exposure to secondhand smoke. Only one reported a statistically significant association between exposure to secondhand smoke at the workplace and risk for lung cancer." One out of 23 is usually dismissed as a rogue result.
Since then, further evidence has been published by the BMJ. In March 2005 it offered fresh data suggesting that passive smoking may kill 11,000 people a year in the UK. The crucial word is "may". If there is a direct causal link between secondary smoking and lung cancer it is so tiny that dedicated campaigners have struggled to identify it. Scotland's Green Party, hardly a promoter of smoking, recently alleged that more Scots are killed by exhaust fumes than by secondary smoke.
Of course secondary smoke can be irritating. Some people detest the smell; others believe it exacerbates their asthma - a claim for which there is some evidence, although it is noteworthy that the incidence of asthma in the UK has risen sharply during a period when the level of smoking has fallen. Nor is it a good idea to expose very small children to dense cigarette smoke.
But the best summary of the passive smoking debate was provided by Dr Smith at the time of the 2003 BMJ controversy. He said: "I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision." That goes for every claim advanced by politicians, charities and health campaigners who demand a smoke-free environment and consider it legitimate to deny freedom to smokers by pretending that their habit harms non-smokers.
Reputable research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself. No matter what poor Roy Castle believed about the effects of years in smoky jazz clubs, there is little scientific proof that secondary smoke causes cancer. And, if very little increased risk can be demonstrated for lung cancer, it is beyond improbable that an increased risk can be proven for other smoking-related diseases where the risks for the active smoker are much lower than for cancer.
The logic is that distortions paraded in a good cause are virtuous. But, a non-smoker myself, I find it alarming that the Government is prepared to base legislation on what is barely more than superstition. Smoking only kills you if you stick the cigarette in your own mouth. To pretend otherwise is mumbo-jumbo.
Greg | 11/26/2009 3:24:00 PMmark as inappropriate I'm not interested in someones theories that other agencies are paying for campaigns against smoking, nor do I believe that the ban says anything about making all restaurant menus the same. What I do know is that smoking is bad for smokers and for anyone inhaling the second hand smoke. What I do know is that myself and tens of thousands like me don't like breathing a smokers cigarette smoke. Vote for an "All Out Ban"!
Tom L | 11/26/2009 3:31:00 PMmark as inappropriate Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health??
If anybody believes that, then I have some ocean-front property in Ohio I would like to sell them.
Marv | 11/28/2009 6:25:00 PMmark as inappropriate Tom, How much for the ocean front property? Is it on the water or across the road? Can I smoke till I die on this property? Please let me know. Marv
Helen | 12/9/2009 5:06:00 PMmark as inappropriate Smoke or not Smoke! The point is that We all have the right to express how we feel and the right to make that decision! This should be put to public Vote it is are town and will effect all of us! Charlie Box is no Hero in my book he wanted to keep this behind closed doors!This takes away everyones right to SPEAK and Make your choice that is 2 Consitutional Rights my friends we can't afford to give up and I would rather keep be Aware of Wolves in Sheeps Clothing because it maybe you will not have that choice for long!!!
