Smoking ban ordinance introduced
Regulation protects public health, safety, takes effect July 1
Jacob McCormick
Issue date: 3/13/08 Section: News
Contrary to some speculations, the Board didn't "fail" to back the city council proposal, Witt said, but rather it decided to put its resolution backing the initiative on hold until the ordinance was introduced to the public and to the Board.
"Problems arose in that the Council members had not yet made a formal public announcement of the initiative and they had not presented, to the Board of Health, the initiative or ordinance for which support had been requested," Witt said. "Therefore, the Board of Health chose to table action on the resolution."
She added that the Board of Health feels that it has clearly demonstrated its support for smoke-free environments in passage of previous resolutions.
Duax also said the smoking issue is one of worker's rights, where employees at the bar might not want to be subject to constant smoke in the workplace.
Walker works at a bar and said he understands worker's rights concerns about smoking. He said he supports the proposal, adding that many customers have talked about the issue with him before.
In terms of the major changes to UW-Eau Claire smoking policies, Duax said the ordinance doesn't go as far as the university and would not super cede its jurisdiction.
"It should have no effect because they've already banned it more extensively than this ordinance," he said. The biggest misconception about the proposal is its prohibition of smoking in public outdoor areas, Duax said, adding that some opponents have read into the ordinance as saying that they can never smoke in places like Carson or Owen Park. The provision, according to the proposal, states that smoking is prohibited in outdoor areas, including portions of city parks and areas outside if city facilities that are posted as no smoking by the city manager or parks and recreation department. But Duax said this only applies to temporary postings.
"What we wanted to say was there are some places in parks that from time to time you'll want to post a no smoking sign," he said. "In the summer we have concerts (at the bandshell at Owen Park). We would probably post those concerts for no smoking then take them down … it's just temporary."
All in all, Duax said he is expecting a strong turnout from both sides during the March 24 public forum.
"A lot of proponents will turn out or have been invited to, and I'm sure the Tavern League will stage a protest," he said. "If this passes, they know the day is soon coming when the state legislature can't turn its back and will have to act. It's just taking longer in Wisconsin than it should have."
"Problems arose in that the Council members had not yet made a formal public announcement of the initiative and they had not presented, to the Board of Health, the initiative or ordinance for which support had been requested," Witt said. "Therefore, the Board of Health chose to table action on the resolution."
She added that the Board of Health feels that it has clearly demonstrated its support for smoke-free environments in passage of previous resolutions.
Duax also said the smoking issue is one of worker's rights, where employees at the bar might not want to be subject to constant smoke in the workplace.
Walker works at a bar and said he understands worker's rights concerns about smoking. He said he supports the proposal, adding that many customers have talked about the issue with him before.
In terms of the major changes to UW-Eau Claire smoking policies, Duax said the ordinance doesn't go as far as the university and would not super cede its jurisdiction.
"It should have no effect because they've already banned it more extensively than this ordinance," he said. The biggest misconception about the proposal is its prohibition of smoking in public outdoor areas, Duax said, adding that some opponents have read into the ordinance as saying that they can never smoke in places like Carson or Owen Park. The provision, according to the proposal, states that smoking is prohibited in outdoor areas, including portions of city parks and areas outside if city facilities that are posted as no smoking by the city manager or parks and recreation department. But Duax said this only applies to temporary postings.
"What we wanted to say was there are some places in parks that from time to time you'll want to post a no smoking sign," he said. "In the summer we have concerts (at the bandshell at Owen Park). We would probably post those concerts for no smoking then take them down … it's just temporary."
All in all, Duax said he is expecting a strong turnout from both sides during the March 24 public forum.
"A lot of proponents will turn out or have been invited to, and I'm sure the Tavern League will stage a protest," he said. "If this passes, they know the day is soon coming when the state legislature can't turn its back and will have to act. It's just taking longer in Wisconsin than it should have."
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 7
Bill Hannegan
posted 3/13/08 @ 12:45 AM CST
Please let me suggest a painless alternative to a smoking ban. Why not require venues that allow smoking to purify their air 15 times or more per hour thru both electronic and HEPA air filtration machines separate from the establishment's regular HVAC system as air filtration engineers recommend. (Continued…)
Thomas Laprade
posted 3/13/08 @ 9:02 PM CST
Smoking bans are the real threat to Democracy
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of "second-hand" smoke. (Continued…)
snowbird
Thomas Laprade
posted 3/13/08 @ 9:09 PM CST
If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone. (Continued…)
snowbird
Thomas Laprade
posted 3/13/08 @ 9:21 PM CST
There are two reasons for no-smoking bans and neither of them are about health.
Quarantine/isolate the smoker.
Denormalize smoking.
That's it in a nut shell
http://smokersclubinc. (Continued…)
Virgil Kleinhelter
posted 3/19/08 @ 3:24 PM CST
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. (Continued…)
Ken Hill
posted 3/20/08 @ 7:09 PM CST
Government Will Make Smokers, Children, Families, Sick
Government's that foster anti-smoking policies lead the real health epidemic, government interference. (Continued…)
Bearc1aw
posted 3/21/08 @ 1:15 PM CST
It should be noted that places like bars can already DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES if they want smoking or not!
Its time to stop going after smokers just because its trendy!
Where are the people, who are against smoking, when air and water quality standards were lowered? Where are these people when it comes to fating fast food? Where are they when Eau Claire starts selling hummers?
Where are they? Driving to Wal-mart to support band environmental standards, SLAVE LABOR and fake health care in low gas mileage cars or sitting on their green treated deck, but from supplies bought at Menard's!
How many hiprocretic bastards are out there who are against smokers BUT HAPLY TAKE THE TAX MONEY THAT SMOKERS PAY!!!
Post a Comment