Last Chance To See 600 sq mi: Hidden
Missed Connections: Gefilte Fish...and "Chain Connections"
H-Town Rock
Rock Talk, Vol. IX
Houstonist vs. Houstonist is a new feature in which two Houstonist contributors will face off to debate an issue that's relevant to life in the Bayou City. Want to join the debate? Hit the comments section at the end of the post.
As we're sure you've heard, Houston's stricter smoking ban — which affects all but a handful of workplaces, including bars — goes into effect tomorrow. The push for the expanded smoking ban gained momentum after a surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke was released last summer; City Council approved the new ordinance in October. But is it the right move for the city? Read on to get Houstonist's two — er, four cents.
|
ALEX RAGSDALE The smoking ban tagline: just smoke and mirrors, or where there’s smoke, there’s fire? The city thinks the latter, but many smokers, business owners and concerned citizens disagree. Let’s look at some of the reasons the city has for putting the kibosh on smoking in restaurants and bars. First, such a smoking ban as the city is putting into effect is necessary to the health of workers. It has been proven that secondhand smoke can increase the risk of, among other things, heart disease, cancer, and emphysema. This fact sheet by the Centers for Disease Control details the negative effects of secondhand smoke. While it’s true that anyone working at a job where they are consistently exposed to secondhand smoke is at that job willingly, many of these workers (waiters, bartenders, etc.) are students or other people who absolutely need these jobs, and usually can’t afford to quit over secondhand smoke. Less secondhand smoke can not only lead to better health for these workers, but focusing on prevention of disease also leads to lower health care costs. So since we know that secondhand smoke is a huge risk factor for disease, it follows that minimizing its occurrence will lower health care costs. A smoking ban can do a lot to improve conditions at restaurants and bars for patrons as well. In places that have enacted bans, the air quality in eating and drinking establishments has improved greatly. In the linked article, it shows that the air quality in New York restaurants after a smoking ban was up to nine times better than New Jersey restaurants, where no ban was in effect. It also reduces the fire hazard that lighters and cigarettes are when they’re used indoors. An added bonus of a smoking ban is that it encourages smokers to quit. A good example of this right here in Houston is local blogger Urban Houstonian. When the city passed the last smoking ordinance, he committed to quitting and has been tobacco-free for over a year. There are similar stories here and in other cities as well. While this isn’t the express purpose of the smoking ban, it is a very positive side effect. Many restaurant and bar owners worry that smoking bans will hurt their business. However, according to the Center for the Advancement of Health, most peer-reviewed studies find no economic loss due to smoking bans. In fact, in light of that, it seems more logical that smoking bans could help businesses. Healthier workers can mean more productive workers, and fires started by cigarettes and lighters could be economically devastating. Smoking bans are an important issue and the controversy they raise demonstrates this. Part of the role of government is to maintain the public health, and while there is something to be said for the rights of business owners, social responsibility and the welfare of the public should trump that. | ERIC WILSON Smoking is harmful to your health. I agree with that, of course. I also agree that it should be banned in restaurants. However, when it comes to bars, that's where it gets muddy. As of now, tobacco is still a legal substance in our country. With the massive negative press cigarette smoking has received and the attention it has garnered from lawmakers, you would think the government would make it totally illegal. That will never happen, though; the cigarette tax brings in a lot of revenue, and lobbyists bring a lot of money to politicians. So, because tobacco is a legal substance and many people (including casual smokers) like to wind down with a cigarette and a drink, why forbid them to do so in an adult environment like a bar? If a bar owner doesn't want smoking in his or her establishment, he or she has the right to ban it now, even without a city ordinance. The fact that the overwhelming majority of bar owners haven't makes me wonder about the true demand for smoke-free bars. One of the reasons for the ban is to protect the health of the workers. But there are many hazardous jobs that can damage your health — or even kill you (think of the miners in Utah). Besides, Texas is a right-to-work state: If you don't want to work in a smoky bar, you don't have to. There are plenty of non-smoking restaurant or hotel bars that will gladly employ you. And most importantly, the true dangers of second-hand smoke are still debatable. Dr. Michael Siegel, one of the leading proponents of banning smoking in restaurants, thinks that the This law will impact smaller, mom-and-pop establishments the most. Data from other cities So yes, smoking is dangerous: It can lead to lung cancer and emphysema and shorten your life if you don't quit. But aren't there other habits that are just as dangerous? Overeating comes to mind, but we're not legislating that ... yet. |
---
Photo: flickr user Nufkin
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Spoken like a true Health Nazi. Let's see, if smoking bans do not hurt some bar's bottom line, then how come Senator Ellis of Houston was pressured to get a statewide ban passed? (After the City of Houston failed to persuade neighboring cities to do so). Could it be because many of the suburbs of Houston do not have a smoking ban and the businesses in Houston are worried they will lose a competitive advantage? The opposing view is absolutely right, it's the Mom and Pop bars, the Pool Halls, and the little neighborhood bars that will suffer the most. Especially the "landlocked" bars that can not build an outdoor patio. That's what happened in Austin. The chain bars, an well-heeled bars will do just fine.
And say, just who is ticketed if someone lights up in a bar? The owner? The waitress? Or the bartender? The bartender, who already has to track patrons for underage drinking and over-drinking, or face jail time more than likely. I've seen bars where smoking was going on and the bartender didn't even see it, and yet they are held responsible. Not every bar can afford to hire a security guard to hunt down smokers. And watch for competing bars to send employees to other bars just so the competing bar can get a ticket. It happened in Austin.
And since Public Health triumphs property rights, then certainly you would be in favor of a public alcohol ban, right? Certainly if no alcohol was sold and consumed in Public Places, lives would be saved and employees would be safer.
Prohibition here we come.
Smoking may be bad for you, but it's healthier than Fascism. And if you think that's not an apt comparison, the first Western Politician to implement smoking bans was, that's right, Adolf Hitler, who also was a teetotaler (didn't drink), an anti-smoker, a vegetarian, and had the SS experiment with organic farms. He was everything the Left wants.
Mom and Pop bars aren't going to suffer. No one goes to a bar because it's a great place to smoke. They go because it serves alcohol, and because they like the vibe / staff / patrons.
I do have mixed feelings about this. I'm a non-smoker and my favorite bar is one of the smokiest in Houston. I go to this bar *knowing* that I'm going to be smoked out within a couple of hours. I *expect* my eyes to be irratated and my clothes to reek. I'm in a bar, people smoke in bars, ergo people *will* be smoking me out tonight.
But I also see and sympathize with the other side: for most of us, bars are recreational spots we visit willingly, but for the employees, bars are their daily workplace. And for every other industry we as a society have collectively agreed (or at least acquiesced) that smoking should be prohibited in the workplace. Why should bars be an exception? Should a waitress who doesn't want to inhale customer smoke every day simply have to quit the good job she currently has and seek employment at one of our city's numerous and world-renowned* non-smoking bars?
*sarcasm alert, void after midnight
On the OTHER hand, ya know, we really didn't have much of a problem with global warming until all the businesses started making the smokers go outside. HmmmMMMmm...
I could completely accept the smoker point of view if it weren't for the fact that smoking doesn't just damage the health of the person who smokes. In the case of bars, it is more than just the employees who suffer. Patrons suffer as well. And the inconvenience to a smoker who either has to wait a couple hours to smoke or step outside is far less than the inconvenience to the patron and employee who have no choice but to breathe the air around them.
I really wish the smokers would cease with the irrational "my rights are being violated" bullshit. Your right to smoke does not supercede my right to have a good time in any bar that I choose.
I quit over a year ago, and know exactly how you feel, but your rights are not being violated, and it's really not the City Council's fault that you cannot read the writing on the wall. This ban isn't exactly a trailblazing piece of legislation. Similar bans have been enforced in other cities with little to no issue. All your fire and brimstone predictions have already been proven wrong elsewhere, namely in New York City. If NYC can survive, I am sure Houston can muscle through.
On the other hand, the non-smokers need to have a Coke and a smile, and shut the hell up. This isn't a victory, and is not a reason to celebrate. You are, after all, getting excited about going to bars again or more. Not exactly the kind of thing that should have you dancing in the street. Hear that Councilwoman?
Enjoy your newfound clean air, and quit gloating. Smokers shouldn't be subjected to your derision, and the fact that you don't smoke doesn't give you any kind of moral high ground.
It isn't a violation of smoker's rights. It is a violation of property owner's rights. No one objects if the OWNER prohibits smoking on his private property, it's when BIG BROTHER prohibits smoking.
Please, this is a public health issue, and the city is WELL within its authority to protect what is sees as threats to public health.
As for bar owners worried about losing their smoking customers, I really hope that the people affected by this ban would up and leave their favorite bar to smoke in one outside the city limit. Not exactly what I would call a loyal customer. I'd start concentrating on how to attract this new group of non-smoking customers who are going to start heading out to the bars again instead of bellyaching about how my rights are being violated.
Besides, their first priority should be to the health of their customers and employees.
"Besides, their first priority should be to the health of their customers and employees."
Then certainly you would be in favor of strict noise controls. Studies have shown that loud music damages the hearing of employees and patrons. Music should be no louder than the level of conversation to be safe.
The hypocrisy of someone who thinks it's ok to drink alcohol in a public place but no, the owner of a dive bar someplace shouldn't be allowed to smoke is amazing. Especially in a state that has the highest number of DWI's in the nation. Every drink served in a bar costs society an average of $1.
Geez, I don't smoke cigarettes, and I don't like the smell of them, but let's get real here:
NOBODY GOES TO A BAR FOR THEIR HEALTH!!!!
All of these people who are screeing and scrying about how deadly second hand smoke is, (the worst among them the reformed former smokers) can go take a flying leap, because I sure don't want to hang out in a bar and relax with those tight butt Puritan goody goodies drinking their panty waist vodka fruit martinis and their no calorie or no alcohol beers. You people aren't any fun at all anyway. Stay Home and Stay Pure. Take a Multivitamin and drink your Pomegranate juice - you old dusty farts.
SEX DRUGS and ROCK and ROLLL!!!
Wonderful, Pometinis are always better when the discussion is devoid of narrowminded generalizations.
Anyone that would even order "Pometinis" has got a lot more problems than fending off narrowminded generalizations or second hand smoke - like being so frigging old and devoid of any semblance of savoir faire or romance to just about be a neuter.
It's called sarcasm, learn how to identify it.
It will be a great day when right-wing companies stop making money off of people who pay to be stinky and slowly tar-up their insides.
It's called a sense of humor, learn how to identify it.
"Please, this is a public health issue, and the city is WELL within its authority to protect what is sees as threats to public health."
Then please ban all fast food restaurants, donut shops, and purveyors of fried foods, they are a danger to public health. So is alcohol consumption (oops, Prohibition did not work). We are the Land of the Free, so, some people don't make such good decisions, so what? Just keeps the gene pool a little deeper. Not to mention, my land, my decision. Big brother needs to get OUT of my business, my life and my right to choose.
The problem is everyone is too black and white. I think there should be a grey area when it comes to bars. Drinking is legal. Smoking is leagal. Both are hazardous and both are deadly. The government's message here is we want the money that comes from these industries (taxes,economy,lobbiests)but not the problems they create. You can buy them but damn you for using them. The answer here is pretty simple. Do people seriously start working in bars not knowing that people smoke there? - No, so their complaint is out. They can do whatever else they want for a job. They have a choice. Do I go get a job at a nude establishment and then complain there are naked people there? - No. There are plenty of people that smoke and drink and plenty that don't so let bar owners dictate weather they want to allow smokers or not. That way, both parties are happy. What's wrong with that?
Thnk you Omniscient - I am a non-smoker but feel *exactly* the same way you do. Why are we letting the government creep in to so many of our activities? When did the government start feeling so compelled to babysit our every move? Let the bar owner decide what he wants to do. Open a non-smoking bar if you want to, don't work at a smoking bar... let the citizens decide and stop meddling in our business. Last time I checked, smoking was still legal. And the double standard between alcohol and smoking is ridiculous. Don't even get me started on the legalization of marijuana...
Before I sign off - I am not arguing about the dangers of smoking and alcohol - I am just sick of how big government is getting...
No one on either side seems to know about the science on second hand smoke. There isn't one shred of empirical evidence that second hand smoke causes any harm to nonsmokers. Yes, you read that correctly.
All studies on second hand smoke or ETS have been Epidemiology or meta analysis studies.
Epidemiology studies are questionnaire's that ask people in their 60's or 70's the levels of ETS they were exposed too since childhood, they rely on peoples memories, there is no clinical evidence. Almost all epidemiology studies have a 95% confidence level, a risk ratio of 1.0 (risk for everyone) with a 2 to 14% margin of error, depending on the sample size. These are called observational studies and were never meant to be used to create public policy.
A meta analysis, which the Surgeon General used in 2006, allows one to choose which studies to use and which to leave out. We call this type of study "cherry picking". By leaving out the studies that you don't want allows one to manipulate the data to a preconceived conclusion. However, even by doing so the Surgeon General did not prove the ETS was dangerous because there is no study that has produced any data that was statistically significant.
Enstrom and Kabat studied 118,000 individuals over 38 years, in cooperation with the American Cancer Society. As a matter of fact they used the ACS database which they still maintain. The results: "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease".
OSHA is a federal agency responsible for indoor air quality. OSHA has a machine that measures indoor air carcinogens, after exhaustive testing in many smoke filled bars and restaurants, they have never issued regulations because ETS has never exceeded their permissible levels of exposure (PELS).
In conclusion, there is no science behind ETS to justify smoking bans.
If you are wondering why you have you heard that ETS kills for the past 15 years, that's simple, MONEY. Once the Pharmaceuticals developed smoking cessations devices the smoking war was on!
The Pharmaceutical companies are currently developing a variety of diet pills and a vaccine for alcohol.
Eventually, there will be something you like to do that will be banned or heavily taxed. Once you allow one special interest group to modify behavior by manipulating science and using millions of advertising dollars, it will never stop.
Do not underestimate the power of special interest groups. They want to make money and keep their stockholders happy, they don't care how they do it, who suffers, how many jobs are lost, or how it effects individual's personal life style and freedom of choice.
Karyn Wells