I have posted often (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) about the City of Austin's decision to impose a revised and increased ban (PDF) on smoking in this city. Short version: I think the idea and the premises behind it are bogus.
New stuff has come to light:
The Austin City Council received a report Oct. 9, 2003, from the City of Austin Air Quality Task Force that looked at how the City's smoking in public places ordinance affects business interests as well as health concerns.
A briefing was conducted Oct. 9. Amendments to the smoking ordinance -- based on the Task Force recommendations -- are tentatively set for consideration at the Oct. 30 Council meeting.The Council meets at the Lower Colorado River Authority, Hancock Building, 3700 Lake Austin Blvd.
The report is here (PDF). Why should you read it? I'll quote parts of the very first page:
The undersigned are grateful to the City Council for allowing us the opportunity to participate in a reasonable process to explore the circumstances surrounding the issue of smoking in public; and to make recommendations to the Council for how to reconcile the various points of view. We believe that if most communities had the patience and wisdom of our City Council they would have crafted solutions much more responsive to the needs of ALL of their citizens.
Can't get anything done without a bit of ass-kissing, but any annoyance I have with this is immediately dispelled.
What we have accomplished in the last three months is a better understanding of the different points of view about Second Hand Smoke and the various roles of society to reduce risk.In brief there seems to be two basic points of view about the problem and respective solutions. One group believes that one molecule of Second hand smoke causes illness and should be eliminated in all forms. Our group believes, after being educated by city staff, that second hand smoke may affect health depending on the intensity and length of exposure. We also believe that the adult citizens of Austin have the intelligence, ability, and overwhelming desire, to make an informed choice about their own health, their own levels of risk, and ultimately, their own levels of exposure to second hand smoke.
We have explored the "Science" on which smoking bans have been promulgated and found striking controversies and rebuttals on this topic. These rebuttals have been reported in prominent medical journals. Litigation in Federal Court has found the data concerning the harm of second hand smoke to be inconclusive. For example some cancers once associated with smoking are being quietly removed from the official list such as Stomach and Cervical cancer which is caused by previously undetected viruses. A more complete and organized discussion of the Science is attached.
We do not dispute that exposure to smoke has health consequences, but we have come to believe that these consequences have been overstated in an overzealous, and over simplified, effort to mobilize the general public through the use of fear tactics and exaggerations. Statistical data supplied by city staff shows that this is a non-issue to the average citizen in Austin. According to a recent survey in New York, only 28% of the people in that State like the new smoking ban and 62% want to see it repealed completely. We have concluded that, the average Austinite wants the right to choose his or her own level of risk on this issue and not have it dictated by a small but vocal minority.
HELL YES.
Now, I don't agree with some of the Task Force's recommendations, but as a whole, it is a far better deal than what was put into law. There is a lengthy Pro vs Con debate that's definitely worth reading, though my stancy of individual liberty doesn't need scientific data demonstrating second hand smoke to be harmful to invalidate it. Also embedded in the report are articles that examine the science behind the claims of SHS's negative impact on health, as well as the potential tax revenue impact a smoking laws can have on a city.
Adding satisfaction to sensibility, we get this cartoon at the end:
UPDATE(3/2/2004 5:07pm)
More here.
UPDATE(4/21/2004 4:21pm)
The ban, initially scheduled to take affect on May 1st, has been posponed:
The city of Austin's new smoking ordinance will likely be postponed a month until June 1. The main reason is to give restaurants more time to show they've improved their air quality.
Dan McClusky's owner Steve Batlin lucked out. His restaurant has always had a separate room for non-smokers and smokers."I really don't think it's necessary. I'm a non-smoker myself. I think it's coming," Batlin said.
The new smoking ordinance is coming, but now it may be one month later. Before they get a smoking permit, restaurants must show they have dual ventilation systems. Lots of business owners installed them to meet the previous ordinance, but the city didn't keep a list.
Copyright ©2004TWEAN News Channel of Austin, L.P. d.b.a. News 8 Austin
Pfft.
UPDATE(6/1/2004 11:06am)
Austin Smoking Ban in Effect Today
UPDATED 5/9/2005 9:06am
The Additional Tyranny - The New Austin Smoking Ban Passes
UPDATED 8/30/2005 1:51pm
Deadline for the Austin Smoking Ordinance
Posted by Drizzten at October 15, 2003 02:04 AM
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
I am a smoker and I just heard on the radio this morning about a new law that takes effect today (4/1/2004) that we are no longer allowed to smoke in our cars here in Texas. I am hoping that this is a very mean April's fools joke.
Posted by: Robyn on April 1, 2004 08:47 AMRobyn, a quick search of Google News for texas smoking cars revealed nothing related to what you heard.
Now, on the other hand, Ireland just banned smoking in all workplaces...and they extended the definition to include vehicles. ( http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/03/27/2003107955 )
On what radio station did you hear this?
Posted by: Drizz on April 1, 2004 12:50 PMI think all of you are very selfish. DO you realize that by smoking in public you are putting many peoples lives at risk as well as your own! Get a brain!!
Posted by: hipster on April 21, 2006 12:35 PMHipster, I will be charitable and assume you have not read my prolific comments on smoking bans. They are linked throughout the above post and I invite you to read them, assuming you show up again. If you have read them, you wouldn't have asked if I knew the dangers of second hand smoke. I shall resist a sarcastic reply to your demand that I get a brain.
But for those others who are reading along, I'll respond to your comment.
I assume "all of you" means, generally, those who oppose smoking bans. I'm not ashamed to say my interests are primarily aligned with my well-being. I speak for myself because there are quite a few anti-ban advocates who don't share my principles. Many are opposed to smoking bans because they are not convinced the dangers to one's health are not enough to justify a ban.
I reject that entire line of argument. I say that just as a homeowner has the right to decide who and enter his or her house and by extension whether smoking is to be allowed inside...I say the business owner has the exact same rights. To interfere with those rights is to declare your desire to enslave other people and rob them of their property for your own use. All this is explained in my other posts.
On a related note, you may think you know what's best for me and for others, but that simply is not your choice to make. I stopped smoking years ago. Most of my friends smoke. They've made their choices and I've made mine. I don't assume the authority to dictate how you live your life and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from doing the same to everyone else.
Furthermore, if "putting peoples lives at risk" is the standard by which we allow others to act, then that standard would suffocate a free society to the point of collapse.
Posted by: Drizz on April 21, 2006 01:44 PM