 |
 |
           
|
| |
Frequently Asked Questions
Don't people have a right to smoke wherever they choose?
The current Clean Indoor Air Ordinance established smoking and non-smoking areas, prohibiting smoking in certain public places and restricting it in workplaces with exemptions. It restricts smoking in workplaces. If smoke is an issue in the workplace, the health of non-smokers must be accommodated.
BOTTOM LINE: A PERSON'S RIGHT TO SMOKE ENDS WHEN IT ENDANGERS THE HEALTH OF ANOTHER PERSON.
Would you support voluntary efforts to go smoke-free?
Smoke-free workplaces are a public health issue and it should not be optional for business owners to opt out on a public health issue that affects the health and well being of workers and patrons alike.
What's the economic impact on restaurants that go smoke-free?
Stronger clean indoor air ordinances do not negatively impact revenues, despite what the tobacco industry may say. For example, in California, which banned smoking in bars in 1998, 91 percent of patrons either go to bars more often or did not change their habits two years after the ban took effect. In Lacrosse, Wisconsin, just a few hours away, no restaurant has lost money because of a ban on smoking, a finding confirmed in a recent study by the University of Wisconsin.
According to Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and the co-author of The Cigarette Papers and Tobacco War, no properly conducted study shows a negative economic impact. Some even show that a smoke-free measure improves business.
Michael O'Neal, the former head of the New York Restaurant Association and the New York City Restaurant Association said: "Smoke-free workplace legislation does not hurt business."
Hotel revenues increased in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York after restaurant smoking bans went into effect, according to a study by Stanton Glantz and Annemarie Chalesworth, MA. Their study, covering three states and six different cities, found that these ordinances had no significant effect on tourist revenues as a fraction of total retail sales or compared with the rate of change in the U.S. as a whole
Add the fact that many "studies" that show negative impact are funded by the tobacco industry and do not use objective data or scientific methods to draw their conclusions. They're simply propaganda to scare restaurant owners into supporting the tobacco industry position.
Wouldn't a good ventilation system solve the problem of secondhand smoke?
First, ventilation systems cannot remove toxins from secondhand smoke. Even if the smoke is removed, the toxins remain. Scientific evidence proves no matter how good a ventilation system is, it simply re-circulates smoky air. Second, there are no safe levels of exposure to secondhand smoke. Finally, smoke knows no boundaries. Non-smoking sections do not eliminate non-smokers' exposure to secondhand smoke.
Why does the tobacco industry think ventilation is the solution?
The tobacco industry is in the business of selling smoking and addiction. They will promote anything that keeps smokers addicted and smoking wherever and whenever they want. The tobacco industry tries to downplay secondhand smoke's dangers by treating it as a minor factor in general "indoor air quality." Pure and simple, ventilation is a political ploy to block smoke-free measures and shift costs to business owners.
What provisions are in the existing Clean Indoor Air Ordinance?
Won't forcing restaurants and other hospitality facilities to go smoke-free negatively impact their revenues?
No. This is simply not true. Several studies and the examples of California, Colorado, Ft. Wayne, Ind.; Austin, Texas; Mesa, Arizona, and a number of other municipalities around the country show no adverse effects, and even some economic gain for businesses following the enactment of smoke-free ordinances.
Shouldn't the decision to go smoke-free be left up to the establishment based on the choices of their customers and employee?
The majority of people—including many smokers—favor smoke-free establishments. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard to all exposed to it. All workers—and patrons—have the right to a safe, smoke-free environment. Businesses should be able to set business practice unless it affects public health, and then regulations are needed.
Shouldn't diners and prospective employees choose where they dine and work so that no one is forced into an establishment which allows smoking?
Everyone has a right to breathe clean, smoke-free indoor air, the same as eating safe food and drinking clean water. Knowing the severe health effects of secondhand smoke, there is no reason for allowing smoking in restaurants and all other places of employment.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|