Smoking ban is a pure example of oppressionBowling Green Daily News - KY, United States
I am writing in response to Paul S. Markle's letter, "Passing a smoking ban is the right thing to do," in Sunday's paper. Mr. Markle is a little mistaken. ...
KERNEL EDITORIAL: Purported benefit of smoking ban is questionable 1/17/07
If you can't smoke inside, you might as well not smoke at all.
That's the mindset of many former smokers, according to a study recently released by the UK College of Public Health.
The study analyzed the number of smokers in Lexington, finding a 31.9 percent decrease in adult smoking between 2001 and 2005. The leaders of the study attribute the drop mostly to the Lexington smoking ban, which took effect in April 2004.
It's obvious that the percentage of Lexington that lights up has decreased in the last few years, and the smoking ban certainly took effect during that time period. But the ban alone did not necessarily break the addictions of thousands of Lexington smokers, leaving them suddenly healthy and happy.
The study indicates that before the ban, 25.7 percent of the Lexington population smoked; that number has dropped to 17.5 percent since the ban took effect.
The study does not indicate, though, how serious the 31.9 percent of smokers who quit were about their habit. Social smokers, who might only smoke a few cigarettes once or twice a week, are lumped together with chain smokers who need a new carton every few days.
"Smoke-free laws change the societal norm and make it easier for smokers to quit," said Dr. Ellen Hahn, a professor in UK's College of Nursing and Public Health and the leader of the study, in a news release.
For social smokers, this is most likely true. Once it's illegal to smoke at bars, restaurants, concerts and other social venues, social smoking situations are practically eliminated. Once smoking is sufficiently inconvenient, some smokers will inevitably stop lighting up.
But the occasional smokers are not the ones who face serious health risks later in their lives; it's the heavier smokers who are likely to be affected. But those smokers - either because of addiction or because they simply don't want to quit - are the most likely to keep the habit, smoking ban or not.
Smoking in Lexington may be decreasing, but that does not necessarily mean the population is significantly healthier. The smoking ban is not justified simply by showing a decrease in smoking over several years.
We continue to oppose the smoking ban, regardless of this new study. The Lexington smoking ban infringes on the rights of businesses to operate as they wish to, and it denies consumers from making their own choices about the establishments they frequent.
Smokers who want to quit will still be able to if the ban is repealed. No matter how you try to spin it, there's no compelling reason for the undue restriction of individual and commercial freedom.
Once they're done congratulating themselves for possibly getting light smokers to quit, Lexington officials should start working on a plan to repeal the smoking ban.
Read
Lexington's smoking ban to stand for now
KERNEL EDITORIAL: Purported benefit of smoking ban is questionable Sep. 21, 2005
By Michelle Ku
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
The Urban County Council yesterday tentatively agreed not to make changes to the city's controversial law that prohibits smoking in almost all enclosed public places.
But smoking ban supporters shouldn't celebrate just yet.
During council reports, Councilman Ed Lane introduced a draft ordinance that would allow smoking in bars as long as they meet specific conditions, such as having a ventilated air conditioning system and requiring that all patrons and workers be older than 21.
Also, the council hasn't heard from the city's law department about whether it is legal for the city to suspend business licenses -- of establishments that had six or more violations in a 12-month period -- for a week. The council could still tighten enforcement if the department finds that it is legal.
The suspension of business licenses was the only change recommended by a 10-member council committee, which included supporters and opponents of the ban, that spent five months reviewing the law.
It could be another month before the department determines whether the suspension of a business license is legal or not, said Councilman David Stevens, who chaired the review committee. "Since they anticipate a court case, they want to make sure it's right."
The council's plan not to make any changes to the law needs two council readings before final approval. That could come Oct. 6.
The 11-3 vote not to make any changes was anticlimactic, particularly since none of the council members commented on their votes, said Dave Whitson, president of the Lexington-Fayette County Food and Beverage Association, which opposed the ban.
The association had hoped changes would be made to help businesses hurt by the law.
But a report released by the University of Kentucky in April showed that the smoking ban hasn't affected business in the city's bars and restaurants.
"People like the law. Businesses haven't been hurt," said Ellen Hahn, a tobacco-control researcher at the University of Kentucky and a proponent of Lexington's ban. "I think it's 'case closed.'"
Both Whitson and Hahn served on the committee that reviewed Lexington's smoking ban that took effect in April 2004.
Lane, a non-smoker, said he introduced the draft ordinance that would allow smoking in bars and nightclubs to apply for a smoking license because the current law takes away rights from business owners.
"I wouldn't go to a bar that allowed smoking," Lane said. "The principle is to make sure that everybody's rights are reviewed."
Under Lane's proposal, a bar or nightclub would have to receive a $250 annual smoking license from the health department and would be inspected on a regular basis to allow smoking.
To receive a license, the bar or nightclub would also have to:
• Have a non-smoking area and an enclosed smoking area.
• Have a ventilated air conditioning system.
• Have a minimum of 75 percent of gross receipts from the sale of alcohol.
• Not allow anyone under 21 to work or enter the establishment.
• Post a sign that smoking is permitted, only those 21 and older are allowed in, and that second-hand smoke may be hazardous to one's health.
The council will address his proposed ordinance when it discusses whether it wants to approve business license suspensions for violations of the smoking ban, Lane said.
If approved, Lane's amendment to the smoking ban "would be a step backward for Lexington," Hahn said.
"It's a slap in the face of science because there really is no way, unless you have hurricane-force winds, to adequately ventilate a space indoors," Hahn said. "The only effective way to get rid of second-hand smoke is source control or banning it like we do in our law."
On the other hand, Whitson said he was "really excited" about the draft ordinance.
"If anything good came out of today ... that's a good thing," he said. "It means the door's still open."
Read
A Closer Look At Lexington's Smoking Ban
April 22, 2005
By Maureen Kyle
(LEXINGTON, Ky.) -- The Louisville Metro Council is looking to Lexington as an example as it considers a smoking ban. Recent studies in the Bluegrass show the economic impact has been small, and Lexington made a smooth transition to go smoke free. But as WAVE 3's Maureen Kyle investigates, some bar and restaurant employees say they're still feeling the pinch of lost customers.
The ashtrays disappeared from Lexington's Rack Club nearly a year ago. But the smoke hasn't completely cleared since the Urban County Council banned lighting up in bars and restaurants.
"Nothing's changed. You pay a dollar and you can smoke, or some people just light up anyway."
Sam Jackson says some of the bars he goes to have found a way to circumvent the law. Patrons are allowed to smoke if enough customers pay a dollar, in order to cover the bar's $100 fine.
"I go to this place up the road here, where people play a lot of pool, a nice little pool room, and you can pay a dollar and smoke in there."
Bartender Tiffany Burke says some establishments gladly pay the fine if it means keeping their businesses booming. "I was just to the point where I was just going to send all my bills to the Mayor. It's like, you're the one who did it, you pay my rent. I can't do it."
Burke has always made her living on tips, but since the ban, "they've cut 'em in half. Rather than not worrying about a paycheck, just depending on tips, I was doing great. Now it's like struggling paycheck to paycheck."
The Rack Club's owners say profits dropped 70% at first, but are now back up to where they were almost a year ago. "People are getting used to it, so we'll see how it goes."
Beth Beile was a vocal opponent fo the smoking ban when the Lexington Urban County Council proposed it. She says she'd rather see an ordinance similar to the one being considered in Louisville.
"Even being a smoker, if I sit down and I'm trying to eat my meal, and somebody's blowing smoke in my face, that really does bother me."
Studies recently conducted in Lexington show most people agree with Beile. Though most restaurant profits dipped slightly when the ban first went into effect, customers came back. Well, almost all the customers.
"The place used to be packed at least through lunch," says Tracy Morton. Now you see it's dead -- one customer in here." She thinks its because of the smoking ban.
"Of course, definitely. We have a lot of regulars that won't even come into the restaurant anymore."
Morton has been a server at Perkins Family Restaurant for two years.
"I would say before the smoking ban, with like I said more servers, I was making $80 a day. Now I'm lucky if I make $60 a day, and that's with three less servers, at least."
Committee will review smoking ban
REPEAL IS NOT EXPECTED
April 20, 2005
By Michelle Ku
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
An Urban County Council committee charged with reviewing Lexington's public smoking ban will discuss minor changes in the law, but there doesn't appear to be momentum to repeal the ban.
The committee, which will hold its first meeting Friday, probably will address issues such as closing a loophole that allows smoking in bingo halls. Others on the committee said they expect some discussion about exempting bars from the ban and ways to improve enforcement of the ordinance.
But most said they expect the ban, which has been in effect for a year, will stay in place when the committee's work is done.
"I don't think repealing the ban is the answer," said Urban County Councilman Jay-McChord, who is on the review committee. "I think if there are any solutions or changes, it's going to be some modifications. My sense is you're not going to see a hard-line push to repeal it."
The committee will study health, air quality and economic studies that have been conducted in the last year, said Councilman David Stevens, chairman of the smoking review committee. Those include a University of Kentucky study released this week that suggests the ban has had little effect on businesses.
The 10-member committee, which includes proponents and opponents of the ban, will have until July 10 to recommend any revisions to Lexington's law, which prohibits smoking in almost all enclosed public places.
Several council members on the committee said that overall, they support the smoke-free law.
But Councilman George Brown, one of three council members who voted against the smoking ban in July 2003, said he remains opposed to the ordinance.
"The ban has, in my opinion, infringed on individual rights," said Brown, who is on the review committee. "I know what people are trying to do and I'm OK with that, but I think sometimes we attempt to legislate beyond what is within our purview."
Brown, who said he will keep an open mind during the review, said he hopes the committee's assessment includes an evaluation of the dollars being lost to surrounding communities that don't have smoking bans.
Nationally, very few cities have ever gone back and weakened a smoke-free law once it's in place, said Josh Alpert, program manager for the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights in Berkeley, Calif.
If anything, a review often leads cities to strengthen their smoking ban, Alpert said. For example, if a community has a smoke-free law for private workplaces, it may consider adding one for restaurants or vice versa.
Lexington does not have a private workplace law. When the city passed the smoking ban for public places, council members chose not to ban smoking in places the public does not have access to.
The definition of "public" has been a central issue in recent debate over smoking in Lexington bingo halls. Although members of the public are allowed to play bingo, a district court judge recently ruled that booster clubs that run the games are private and therefore exempt from the ban.
The Fayette County Attorney's office plans to appeal the court decision.
And the review committee will look at tightening the loophole to keep smoking out of bingo halls.
Allowing smoking in a public bingo hall, is "not within the spirit or intent," of the smoke-free law, Stevens said. "They're violating the law, clearly."
The booster clubs do a lot of good by raising money for schools and athletic groups, Stevens said. "I'd like to see if we can figure out a way for them to comply (with the law) and still have the booster clubs realize some benefit from it."
As the review committee begins its work, restaurant and bar owners will probably press for other exemptions.
Tucker Richardson, an attorney who represents about a dozen bars that have been cited for violating the ban, says his clients want the council to write an exception for bars.
People go to restaurants to eat and leave, Richardson said. But they hang out at bars, and customers want to smoke when they drink.
"The majority of the people I have talked to understand the difference between a bar and a restaurant," Richardson said.
At this point, it's unclear whether the council would be willing to create such an exception.
Tobacco farmer Frank Penn, a member of the review committee, said the city "probably went a little too far," when it included bars in the smoking ban. Penn said he would like to see establishments that derive 50 percent of their revenue from alcohol be given the choice to be smoking or non-smoking.
Last month, Connie Hicks, bar manager at Todd's Karaoke Bar and Grille, talked to the council about creating a smoking license that businesses could buy which would give them the right to allow smoking.
Only patrons 21 and older would be allowed inside a business that purchased such a license, Hicks said.
But Vice Mayor Mike Scanlon, who is on the review committee, said he would be against letting people smoke in businesses in exchange for a license fee.
"The worse perversion of this smoking ban would be to create tax revenue out of it," Scanlon said.
Committee to review the smoking ban
• Chairman: David Stevens, at-large Urban County Councilman
• George Brown, 1st District councilman
• Chuck Ellinger, at-large councilman
• Vice Mayor Mike Scanlon
• Ellen Hahn, associate professor, University of Kentucky college of nursing
• Linda Gorton, 4th District councilwoman
• Jay McChord, 9th District councilman
• Melinda Rowe, commissioner of the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department
• Frank Penn, tobacco farmer
Judge Exempts Charities from Smoking Ban
Lexington's Smoking Ban Suffers Major Defeat
March 22, 2005
27 WKYT
Lexington's smoking ban suffered a major defeat Tuesday. A Lexington judge has ruled that some local charities are exempt from the law, which means bingo players can light up.
Ever since Lexington enacted its no-smoking policy, some bingo parlors have been breaking the law, claiming that the charities running the bingo games were exempt from the law.
Tuesday, a Fayette district court judge agreed, dropping all charges against six area charities.
In the ruling, district judge David Hayse said high school booster clubs do qualify as private organizations, and therefore are exempt from the enforcement of Lexington's smoking ordinance.
The attorney for the non-profit groups, Jerry Wright, calls the ruling good news for parents who work hard to provide the money needed for school organizations.
"We didn't write this ordinance. Whoever wrote it says there's a need to have certain organizations be exempt. They didn't say who they were, but they defined them. If you look at that definition, that's us. That's each one of our charities."
The county attorney's office can appeal the decision, but hasn't made that decision just yet.
27 NEWSFIRST also contacted the Lexington health department, but we're told they are still reviewing the decision and will make a statement later today.
Vice mayor accused of assault
SCANLON: ALLEGATIONS 'ABSURD'; NO CHARGES FILED YET
April 12, 2005
By Michelle Ku
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
A car salesman has told Lexington police that Vice Mayor Mike Scanlon assaulted him, grabbing him by the throat and yelling at him.
Marcus A. Powell, 24, a Paul Miller Ford salesman, went to Scanlon's downtown office March 24 to pick up sales papers on a Ford Mustang that Scanlon was purchasing when the vice mayor allegedly grabbed Powell by his tie and shirt, according to police records.
Scanlon, Lexington's vice mayor since 2003, has not been charged in the alleged assault. In an interview, he called the allegations "absurd and wrong."
Since fourth-degree assault is a misdemeanor, police officers cannot make an arrest unless they witness the incident, said police Lt. James A. Curless.
If Powell wants to press charges, he can file a criminal complaint with Fayette District Court, Curless said. A criminal complaint had not been filed in district court as of yesterday.
In interviews at Paul Miller Ford last week and yesterday, Powell would not say whether he planned to file a complaint in district court. Powell has one year to file criminal charges before the statute of limitations expires, Curless said.
When asked about the incident last week, police said they could not release the name of the suspect who allegedly assaulted Powell until the investigation was closed.
The case was closed yesterday. But, in response to an open records request, officials said they would not release the suspect's name, saying in a letter to the Herald-Leader that "the suspect maintains an expectation of privacy" because no arrest had been made.
Police officials deleted the suspect's name from all but one case document released to the Herald-Leader. A memo filed by one of the responding officers still contained the subject line: "Terroristic Threatening disorder between Vice Mayor Scanlon and car salesman."
Scanlon declined to comment on the incident yesterday. He would not acknowledge whether he knew Powell.
"This is one of those situations that I won't even dignify it by discussing it," Scanlon said. "This is absurd and wrong."
According to police reports, the alleged assault took place March 24 at 249 East Main Street, the location of Scanlon's offices. Scanlon is CEO of Thomas and King, which owns Applebee's and Johnny Carino's restaurants in several states.
It is unclear from the reports who called police, but two officers -- responding to a terroristic threatening call -- arrived at Scanlon's office at 5:19 p.m. and took statements from both Powell and Scanlon.
Powell went to Scanlon's offices to pick up sales papers for a Mustang that Scanlon had already paid for when Powell noticed that some of the papers were not signed, the reports state.
Powell asked Scanlon to complete the paperwork. When Scanlon refused, Powell told Scanlon that he "had an extra key and would return the vehicle to the dealership if the papers were not signed," according to police records.
Scanlon said the car was already his and that he would not return it, according to the reports.
Powell was leaving when Scanlon ran up behind him, grabbed him by the shoulders, spun him around, grabbed him by his tie and shirt and yelled at him, the report said.
Scanlon acknowledged he grabbed Powell "by the necktie in attempts to protect 'his property,'" according to police records. One of the officers observed that Powell "did not have red markings on his throat," the records state.
Powell told the officer who responded that he did not want to press charges against Scanlon, "he simply wanted the vehicle to return to his boss," according to police records. Both Powell and Scanlon told the officers that they did not want any kind of police report written about the incident, according to police documents.
But Powell filed a police report four days later, on March 28, after he realized that he had been injured during the altercation, records show.
Powell's $40 Ralph Lauren dress shirt had a button torn off and a blood stain, the report states. Powell also sustained a four- to five-inch scratch as a result of the alleged assault. The report did not specify where he was injured.
Powell declined to comment on the incident yesterday. "I haven't said anything to anyone around me," Powell said.
Greg Wells, customer relations manager at Paul Miller Ford, said last week he knew nothing about the alleged assault.
"That sounds totally absurd to me," Wells said. "I can't imagine anything like this with our customers."
Wells acknowledged that Powell has helped with the paperwork on at least two of Scanlon's vehicle purchases from Paul Miller. Wells was not available for comment yesterday.
Over the years Scanlon, an avid car collector, and the dealership have established a relationship. Scanlon has purchased several vehicles from Paul Miller, Wells said last week. Scanlon spoke at the dealership's 50th anniversary in October and he brought a Fifties-era Ford to the event, Wells said.
KERNEL EDITORIAL: Purported benefit of smoking ban is questionable
