<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Gary,</div><div><br></div><div>I am all in favor of choice. But I don't see how the fact that workers and customers ultimately choose to occupy smoke filled places should count as a solution to the problem that we're discussing. There is still the social and personal impact of second hand smoke, whether people choose it or not. I wonder, too, what kinds of 'choice' some of the folks who work at bars have. Walmart or the Alley? That is not much of a choice, for me personally.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); "></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373);"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); ">Again, I'm not in favor of a smoking ban but it is clear that this is a social problem, one about which the city government should care. Leaving things the same because people ultimately choose their lot is not much of a solution. </span></div><div><br>Joe Campbell</div><div><br>On Jun 20, 2009, at 7:01 AM, "g. crabtree" <<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">It would seem to me that a person applying for a
job in a bar would know full well what kind of environment they were going to be
working in and would be making an adult decision on the pros and cons. The
same applies to people who work in mines, fight forest fires, fish off the
Aleutians or manufacture explosives. All have an element of risk and people make
a decision whether or not the risk is worth it. If a person is disinclined to
work in an environment that contains second hand smoke, perhaps they should
apply at Wal-Mart. No second hand smoke there.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">g</font></div>
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a title="starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="bear@moscow.com" href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 19, 2009 8:20 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] More
Banning?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>For arguments sake? Are you implying the data from the CDC might be
in error? That tobacco is not the leading cause of premature death in
the US?</div>
<div>That hundreds of thousands of people do not die prematurely in the US
every year from tobacco abuse/addiction?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are not addressing the central point of my post. Second hand
smoke in the workplace in smoking bars exposes workers <strong>by merely
breathing</strong> to a drug that is associated <strong>with more
premature death in the US than any other cause.</strong> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Expanding your argument, which apparently is that tobacco should be
allowed to be smoked in workplaces (note this is indoors, not outdoors
where tobacco smoke does not concentrate), exposing workers, when they
breathe, then would you approve of allowing tobacco smoking in
all indoor workplaces, or where would you draw the line? What
restrictions regarding tobacco smoking in the workplace would you accept,
that do not cross the line into "Big Brother" regulation, if any?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You raise the issue of food and regulation of fats. But your
example does not cover the same circumstance as the bar workplace smoking
issue regarding bar workers. Are workers at McDonalds exposed
to the fat from the double cheeseburgers the customers
eat, or the fat from the potato fryer, merely by being in the same
room? Is it the case that when a customer eats a double cheeseburger, or
when a load of fries is cooked in the fryer, this dumps some of the fat
into the workers bloodstream when they breathe?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Workers at McDonalds do not have to consume this fat unless they choose
to by eating.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/19/09, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></a></b> <<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Ted,<br><br>IF
for arguments sake, I agree with all the statistics you listed, why do<br>we
need MORE legislation? Where does it stop? Is the Moscow City
Council<br>going to take on the Trans-Fat issue next? Where does Big
Brother<br>legislation end, and Personal Responsibility take
over?<br><br><br>Some US cities are acting to reduce consumption of trans
fats. In May<br>2005, Tiburon, California, became the first American city
wherein all<br>restaurants voluntarily cook with trans fat-free oils.
Montgomery County,<br>Maryland approved a ban on partially hydrogenated
oils, becoming the first<br>county in the nation to restrict trans
fats.<br>New York City embarked on a campaign in 2005 to reduce consumption
of<br>trans fats, noting that heart disease is the primary cause of
resident<br>deaths. This has included a Public education campaign and a
request to<br>restaurant owners to eliminate trans fat from their offerings
voluntarily<br>. Finding that the voluntary program was not successful, New
York City's<br>Board of Health in 2006 solicited public comments on a
proposal to ban<br>artificial trans fats in restaurants. The board voted to
ban trans fat in<br>restaurant food on December 5, 2006. New York was the
first large US city<br>to strictly limit trans fats in restaurants.
Restaurants were barred from<br>using most frying and spreading fats
containing artificial trans fats<br>above 0.5 g per serving on July 1, 2007,
and were supposed to have met the<br>same target in all of their foods by
July 1, 2008.<br>Philadelphia also recently passed a ban on trans fats.
Philadelphia's City<br>Council voted unanimously to pass a ban on February
8, 2007, which was<br>signed into law on February 15, 2007, by Mayor John F.
Street. By<br>September 1, 2007, eateries must cease frying food in trans
fats. A year<br>later, trans fat must not be used as an ingredient in
commercial kitchens.<br>The law does not apply to prepackaged foods sold in
the city. On October<br>10, 2007, the Philadelphia City Council approved the
use of trans-fats by<br>small bakeries throughout the city.<br>Albany County
of New York passed a ban on trans fats. The ban was adopted<br>after a
unanimous vote by the county legislature on May 14, 2007. The<br>decision
was made after New York City's decision, but no plan has been put<br>into
place. Legislators received a letter from Rick J. Sampson, president<br>and
CEO of the New York State Restaurant Association, calling on them
to<br>"delay any action on this issue until the full impact of the New York
City<br>ban is known."<br>San Francisco officially asked its restaurants to
stop using trans fat in<br>January 2008. The voluntary program will grant a
city decal to restaurants<br>that comply and apply for the decal.
Legislators say the next step will be<br>a mandatory ban.<br>Chicago also
considered a ban on oils containing trans fats for large<br>chain
restaurants, and finally settled on a partial ban on oils and<br>posting
requirements for fast food restaurants.<br>On December 19, 2006,
Massachusetts state representative Peter Koutoujian<br>filed the first state
level legislation that would ban restaurants from<br>preparing foods with
trans fats.[95] The statewide legislation has not yet<br>passed. However,
the city of Boston did ban the sale of foods containing<br>artificial trans
fats at more than 0.5 grams per serving, which is similar<br>to the New York
City regulation; there are some exceptions for clearly<br>labeled packaged
foods and charitable bake sales.<br>Maryland and Vermont were considering
statewide bans of trans fats as of<br>March 2007.<br>King County of
Washington passed a ban on artificial trans fats effective<br>February 1,
2009.<br>On July 25, 2008, California became the first state to ban trans
fats in<br>restaurants. Effective January 1, 2010, Californian restaurants
will be<br>prohibited from using oil, shortening, and margarine containing
artificial<br>trans fats in spreads or for frying, with the exception of
deep frying<br>donuts. Donuts and other baked goods will be prohibited from
containing<br>artificial trans fats as of January 1, 2011.<br><br>The
primary health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an<br>elevated
risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).A comprehensive review of<br>studies of
trans fats was published in 2006 in the New England Journal of<br>Medicine
reports a strong and reliable connection between trans fat<br>consumption
and CHD, concluding that "On a per-calorie basis, trans fats<br>appear to
increase the risk of CHD more than any other macronutrient,<br>conferring a
substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption (1<br>to 3 percent
of total energy intake)". This study estimates that between<br>30,000 and
100,000 cardiac deaths per year in the United States are<br>attributable to
the consumption of trans fats.<br><br>There are suggestions that the
negative consequences of trans fat<br>consumption go beyond the
cardiovascular risk. In general, there is much<br>less scientific consensus
that eating trans fat specifically increases the<br>risk of other chronic
health problems:<br>Alzheimer's Disease: A study published in Archives of
Neurology in<br>February 2003 suggested that the intake of both trans fats
and saturated<br>fats promote the development of Alzheimer
disease.<br>Cancer: There is no scientific consensus that consumption of
trans fats<br>significantly increases cancer risks across the board. The
American Cancer<br>Society states that a relationship between trans fats and
cancer "has not<br>been determined." However, one recent study has found
connections between<br>trans fat and prostate cancer. An increased intake of
trans-fatty acids<br>may raise the risk of breast cancer by 75 percent,
suggest the results<br>from the French part of the European Prospective
Investigation into Cancer<br>and Nutrition.<br>Diabetes: There is a growing
concern that the risk of type 2 diabetes<br>increases with trans fat
consumption. However, consensus has not been<br>reached. For example, one
study found that risk is higher for those in the<br>highest quartile of
trans fat consumption. Another study has found no<br>diabetes risk once
other factors such as total fat intake and BMI were<br>accounted
for.<br>Obesity: Research indicates that trans fat may increase weight gain
and<br>abdominal fat, despite a similar caloric intake. A 6-year
experiment<br>revealed that monkeys fed a trans-fat diet gained 7.2% of
their body<br>weight, as compared to 1.8% for monkeys on a mono-unsaturated
fat diet.<br>Although obesity is frequently linked to trans fat in the
popular media,<br>this is generally in the context of eating too many
calories; there is no<br>scientific consensus connecting trans fat and
obesity.<br>Liver Dysfunction: Trans fats are metabolized differently by the
liver<br>than other fats and interfere with delta 6 desaturase. Delta 6
desaturase<br>is an enzyme involved in converting essential fatty acids to
arachidonic<br>acid and prostaglandins, both of which are important to the
functioning of<br>cells.<br>Infertility: One 2007 study found, "Each 2%
increase in the intake of<br>energy from trans unsaturated fats, as opposed
to that from carbohydrates,<br>was associated with a 73% greater risk of
ovulatory
infertility…".<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>
*<a href="http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n1/full/nm0199_15.html*"><a href="http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n1/full/nm0199_15.html*">http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n1/full/nm0199_15.html*</a></a><br>>
**<br>> *The largest study ever undertaken to examine the health effects
of<br>> tobacco<br>> finds that there are already a million deaths a
year from smoking in<br>> China,<br>> and it predicts large increases
in mortality over the next few decades.<br>> This<br>> pattern is
likely to be repeated in other developing countries. *<br>>
--------------<br>> <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm"><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm</a></a><br>><br>>
Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the
United<br>> States and produces substantial health-related economic costs
to<br>> society (*1<<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm"><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm</a></a>><br>>
,2*).<br>> --------------<br>> Well, at least its a form of population
control! And I have heard serious<br>> economic arguments that
the premature deaths from tobacco use are a<br>> benefit<br>> to
society, reducing the long term costs of Medicare and Social
Security<br>> that are increasing with a longer life
span.<br>><br>> But that this is even a subject for apparently serious
debate (exposing<br>> workers and customers in bars to the smoke of
tobacco), the use of which<br>> is<br>> associated with the deaths
(often ugly drawn out deaths) of hundreds of<br>> thousands of people
prematurely in the US every year, is an example of the<br>>
contradictions, blind-spots and obfuscation, regarding establishing<br>>
rational<br>> legal and social policies based on the facts of the harm
from drug use and<br>> abuse, common in the US.<br>><br>> Tobacco
prematurely kills more people than heroin, cocaine and meth<br>>
combined, many times over. I have often gone to a bar and after a
few<br>> hours<br>> could feel the drug effects of the nicotine from
the second hand smoke, as<br>> though I had smoked one or two, though I
never held a cigarette in my<br>> hand.<br>> Of course, I did not have
to be there... But the peer pressure and<br>> cultural<br>> influences
to go to bars is significant, especially for young adults.<br>><br>>
Bucers "smoking room" does not expose the workers at Bucers, as far as
I<br>> have been able to see, to the smoking of those in that room, or at
least<br>> not<br>> very much. The room is not attended by
"bar persons," that I have seen,<br>> to<br>> use a gender neutral
form of the phrase "bar maid," which is often<br>> assumed is who will be
waiting tables in a bar, the sexier the female the<br>> better (more
drinks are ordered with sexual arousal of the male patrons).<br>> Of
course Bucers is not really a "bar." There is no hard liquor
sold<br>> there.<br>><br>> Most bars have employees working in the
area where smokers will smoke.<br>> Some<br>> bars have non-smoking
areas, but this does not stop workers in the smoking<br>> section from
exposure. What workplace allows workers to be exposed to<br>>
tobacco smoke? Does Microsoft, Ford or McDonalds allow smoking in
their<br>> workplaces?<br>><br>> The U of I once allowed smoking,
if I recall correctly, in Brink Hall.<br>> Then<br>> they banned
smoking in this building. Then after the smokers crowded
the<br>> entrances, creating a gauntlet of smoke for those entering the
building,<br>> they requested smokers move a number of feet away from
entrances.<br>><br>> No workplace should expose employees to a drug
(of course tobacco smoke is<br>> more complex than just nicotine, with
numerous compounds) that kills more<br>> people prematurely than any
other single cause.<br>><br>> I have a pack of
cigarettes. I bought it several years
ago. Shermans<br>> Naturals. Occasionally I smoke
one. About half the pack is gone. I have<br>> been
lucky. For whatever reason(s), though I have smoked on and off,
at<br>> one<br>> time smoking about 5 cigarettes a day, I have never
become addicted. When<br>> I<br>> was smoking about 5
cigarettes a day, I noticed that my wind and endurance<br>> when running
was impaired. And that was the end of that... I dropped
the<br>> habit very easily. Again, I was lucky. I
have known people who were<br>> owned<br>> by tobacco addiction, two
or three packs a day. Who pledged over and over<br>> to
quit. Who hated how they smelled, how they tasted when being
kissed...<br>> Who tried nicotine patches, distractions of one sort or
another, who<br>> fought<br>> themselves daily over their compulsion
to smoke repeatedly off and on all<br>> day, the coughing and lung
irritation. And this went on for years...<br>><br>> Ted
Moffett<br>><br>> On 6/19/09, <a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></a> <<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>> Ted,<br>>><br>>> What
about something less draconian than a ban? What about a physical<br>>>
separation with air exchangers? What do you think about the way
Bucers<br>>> has<br>>> their set up?<br>>><br>>> I
can tell you that as a smoker, I am less inclined to compromise
with<br>>> total bans and advocates of total bans when their interests
are up for<br>>> consideration later. And I vote. There has
to be a middle ground<br>>> somewhere.<br>>><br>>> And you
mention that keeping bars smoke free is a benefit to
the<br>>> workers<br>>> in these businesses who need the jobs
yet are exposed to second hand<br>>> smoke. In the case here in
Moscow, I don't even think the employees were<br>>> even asked. Based
on the tape I saw of the meeting before city council<br>>>
on<br>>> the 18th of May, it was an individual that is a bar customer,
and from<br>>> his<br>>> comments, I have to believe he was
talking about Mingles. So, because he<br>>> doesn't like the smoky
atmosphere in Mingles, all of the bars in Moscow<br>>> have
to ban smoking?<br>>><br>>> I just think much more research
needs to be done to see IF there is a<br>>> problem before the Council
passes a ban. The quick, knee jerk reaction,<br>>> the simple solution
to the problem IF there is one, is to pass a
ban.<br>>><br>>><br>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>>
> New York City has banned tobacco smoking in bars and
restaurants.<br>>> There<br>>> > have been some negative
consequences, but New York still has a night<br>>> life<br>>>
> for drinkers:<br>>> ><br>>> > <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm"><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm</a></a><br>>>
><br>>> > From website above:<br>>> ><br>>> >
New York City is still coming to terms with smoke-free night
life<br>>> three<br>>> > months after a ban went into effect
outlawing smoking in virtually all<br>>> > workplaces, including
restaurants and bars.<br>>> ><br>>> > Five states — New
York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and California —<br>>>
have<br>>> > passed similar smoking restrictions that include bars
and taverns. New<br>>> > York<br>>> > state's ban, which
echoes the city's anti-smoking law, goes into<br>>> effect<br>>>
> July<br>>> > 24.<br>>> >
------------------------<br>>> > I am in favor of banning tobacco
smoking in bars (and workplaces).<br>>> > Keeping<br>>> >
bars smoke free is a benefit to the workers in these businesses
who<br>>> need<br>>> > the<br>>> > jobs yet are
exposed to second hand smoke. The workers in bars are<br>>>
not<br>>> > forced to drink the drinks the customers order; yet
they must breathe<br>>> the<br>>> > air polluted by customers
smoking. Furthermore, the damage to peoples<br>>> >
lives<br>>> > and society from tobacco abuse/addiction (the single
largest cause of<br>>> > premature death) is so huge that laws
blocking smoking tobacco in what<br>>> are<br>>> > publicly
oriented businesses (even if privately owned) is reasonable,<br>>>
if<br>>> > practical. I would not support criminalizing
tobacco. Any adult<br>>> wishing<br>>> > to<br>>> >
smoke in their homes or on their property should be free to do so
(but<br>>> not<br>>> > to expose children to second hand
smoke, of course). But a ban on<br>>> smoking<br>>>
> in bars (and on all advertising) would limit encouragement of
tobacco<br>>> use.<br>>> > If someone wants to form a private
smoking/drinking "club" on private<br>>> > property, they should be
free to do so. Just don't expect workers who<br>>> >
need<br>>> > jobs to have to breathe second hand smoke for a
paycheck.<br>>> ><br>>> > Ted Moffett<br>>>
><br>>> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Chasuk <<a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:chasuk@gmail.com">chasuk@gmail.com</a></a>> wrote:<br>>>
><br>>> >> I'm not surprised that those in the grip of the
smoking addiction<br>>> >> would drive drunk. There
is no human behavior so pathetic that<br>>> >> someone won't
indulge it.<br>>> >><br>>> >> However, I am against
outright smoking bans. Yes, I should be able<br>>>
to<br>>> >> enjoy my evening without the stink of cigarettes,
but the smoker<br>>> >> should be able to commit slow suicide if
he or she chooses.<br>>> >><br>>> >> There are
plenty of places that I can publicly eat or socialize where<br>>>
>> I will not be bothered by smokers.<br>>> >><br>>>
>> No more bans, please.<br>>> >><br>>> >>
=======================================================<br>>>
>> List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>>> >> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.<br>>>
>>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><br>>>
>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>>>
>> =======================================================<br>>>
>><br>>>
><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>
<p>
</p><hr>
<p></p>=======================================================<br> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>=======================================================</blockquote>
the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>=======================================================
Y>
</div><div><span>=======================================================</span><br><span> List services made available by First Step Internet, </span><br><span> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. </span><br><span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> </span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a></span><br><span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote></body></html>