No exemptions for New Albany smoking ban

Legislation passes by 4-1 vote; goes into effect on June 16.

May 18, 2005
By SCOTT TAKAC

Unless they're at home, New Albany smokers will be smoking outside, even if they're at New Albany Country Club.

New Albany Village Council passed a smoking ban with a 4-1 vote Tuesday that ended up looking very much like the one passed in Columbus.

The ban will take effect June 16.

Council member Steve Pleasnick represented the sole dissenting vote and members Tommy Taneff and Colleen Briscoe were absent when the vote took place.

Soon after the ordinance was re-introduced, Pleasnick -- who initially proposed an exemption for the country club and is a member there -- moved that the ban be adopted with the exemption in place.

But Council member Mike Mott, who had previously stated his desire to see the ban passed with as few exemptions as possible, stuck to his guns despite Pleasnick's motion.

"In the interest of equity, I think the exemption for country clubs should be removed from the ordinance," Mott said.

Council member Glyde Marsh sided with Mott.

"I do not believe we should have legislation that varies from what the city of Columbus is," Marsh said, adding that to pass differing legislation would be opening the doors to organizations wanting to transplant to New Albany for that reason.

Council member Dave Olmstead, who had expressed a desire to keep both sides happy without infringing on one another's rights, proposed one exemption be left in.

"The only change that I would like to see included would be for home occupations," Olmstead said, adding he thought government should stay out of peoples' homes.

Also of the opinion that government should stay out of peoples' homes -- and their businesses as well -- was New Albany resident Paul Stamm, who picketed outside Village Hall for his second consecutive council meeting.

"I think by and large Americans are apathetic and I suspect most people, like me, dislike smoking," Stamm said prior to the meeting.

"But unlike me, I think they fail to realize what an infringement on property rights this smoking ban is."

In the end, Olmstead's motion carried as well as an exemption for private social or philanthropic, not-for-profit clubs with D-4 liquor licenses, which currently don't exist in New Albany.

http://www.snponline.com/NEWS5-18/5-18_nasmokingban.htm

From: joyce [mailto:maumeeriverrat@direcway.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 11:22 AM
To: snpletters@cm-media.com
 
Re: Proposed Smoking Bans in New Albany and Westerville.
 
 I urge caution concerning action by New Albany and Westerville councils to implement a smoking ban, and suggest you take a lesson from recent history in my city of Toledo before following  the rest of the lemmings over the cliff.
 
 Backed by the health claims made by the various advocacy groups (who receive substantial funding to advocate smoking cessation), the city enacted a very restrictive ban in 2003. The anti-smoking advocates told our city council that there would not be any economic impact, and nonsmokers would fill the bars and restaurants even if the smokers left. In reality, after one year, many bars and restaurants failed, over 600 jobs and millions of dollars of revenue were lost. . In fact, just last month alone, two diners and a bowling alley shut down, as they were unable to recover their losses from last years ban.  The citizens of Toledo voted in November to recind many of the ban restrictions, but that does not undo the loss to the owners who were put out of business by an unfair prohibition. Do not be so  foolish to think that will not happen where you live.
 
 The fact is that claims about secondhand smoke are unsupported. the vast majority of scientific study, including the largest and longest studies on the subject, show that there is no significant health risk. The anti-smoking groups never mention that-instead they site "studies" such as Helena, Montana, which have been completely discredited by the scientific community. In this particular case, the 40% drop in heart attacks was derived from 4 pepole per month verses 7 people typically-a very small data pool to generate such sensational conclutions. The decrease occurred during the first half of the 6 month ban only, and the same decrease also happened in 1998, before any ban  whatsoever. They did not even know how many of these people were smokers or exposed to smoke. Is this the best information the ban advocates can provide? The answer is yes. The health claims are simply unfounded.
 
 Backed by solid scientific data, OSHA has repeatedly made clear that secondhand smoke is not a workplace health and safety issue. EPA has never produced any regulation banning smoking. What gives city council the authority to step into the realm of these government agencies?
 
 As for the referendum, is it your democratic right to run roughshod over the minority, to infringe on the private property rights of business owners, and ban a legal activity? Again, this is simply history repeating.
 
 Sincerely,
 Joyce Welling
 Owner, Fitzpatrick's Tavern
 1771 Airport Highway
 Toledo, Ohio 43609
 (419)389-0277

Council debates exemption for proposed smoking ban

Members are expected to vote on the ordinance May 3.

April 20, 2005
By SCOTT TAKAC

New Albany Village Council on Tuesday discussed the possibility of exemptions to the anti-smoking ordinance that was introduced earlier this month.

Discussion on the subject came after a presentation by Dr. Rob Crane -- who is a big spokesman in the fight against second-hand smoke -- at a workshop held after council's regular meeting.

Crane has successfully lobbied, through his efforts with Smoke-Free Columbus, for the ban that is in effect in Columbus and nine of its suburbs.

"This is kind of an anniversary for me," said Crane, a physician. "This is my 50th appearance before one city council or another."

Crane presented data via a Powerpoint presentation on several studies he said showed the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke, including one that took place in Helena Montana that showed a 40-percent drop in heart attack rates in the first six months after a ban took effect.

"No one should ever have to trade their health for a paycheck, especially when it only requires someone to step outside for five minutes," Crane said, concluding his presentation.

"I hear the statistics and there is no doubt in my mind that smoking is not good for you," said council member Dave Olmstead. "At the same time ... you look at it from where should the government be in your life."

Council member Steve Pleasnick, who said he agreed with Olmstead, again lobbied for possible consideration of an exemption for New Albany Country Club.

"I think there may be a way if a private country club for instance has a designated area that is not open to the general public but only to those members that are going to a separate room," Pleasnick said. "... We should not deny them the right to do that."

"I think people should have the ability to smoke in places where they want," Olmstead said.

Council member Colleen Briscoe said that she thought any exemption should carry a stipulation attached to age, making sure that only people 21 and over were allowed in any area where smoking was permitted.

Briscoe also pointed out that while New Albany Country Club had a men's grill, where men could smoke in a separate, enclosed area, it did not have a similar location for women, something she said would be considered discriminatory.

Ferguson also questioned if service employees working in a smoking area had the economic ability to be able to say 'no' to working in an area where smoking was allowed and potential income existed.

Council members Michael Mott -- who invited Crane to speak -- and Tommy Taneff both questioned adding exemptions to the ordinance.

"I don't think we can have a separate but equal facility within the same club," Taneff said.

"I invited Dr. Crane to come speak because I thought it would be interesting," said Mott. "I just can't get past the secondhand smoke argument, when I see young people working and I see kids."
http://www.snponline.com

Smoking ban debate sparked in New Albany

Village Council introduces and reads smoking law, then tables it until May 3.

April 6, 2005
By SCOTT TAKAC

Suds at the club sans cigars or cigarettes could be a reality in New Albany by May.

New Albany Village Council introduced and read an ordinance Tuesday that would put the village on the growing list of Central Ohio municipalities that have banned smoking with concerns for public health.

Besides the country club, the Rusty Bucket would also be affected by a smoking law.

The introduction of legislation to ban smoking, unlike in many areas, came with little fanfare or forewarning, but aroused concern from one council member over a possible change in the routine at New Albany Country Club.

"If we pass an ordinance, would it pertain to people at the New Albany Country Club men's grill?" asked council member Steve Pleasnick, before council voted unanimously to table the ordinance until its details could be hashed out further in a workshop.

Village Attorney Mitch Banchefsky said that the ordinance was designed not only to protect club members, but also employees from being subjected to secondhand smoke.

"We were talking about an exemption for the club and we got into the discussion of how can you treat one differently than the other," said council member Michael Mott of a conversation he had with Banchefsky.

Banchefsky said one major difference in the legislation in comparison to the one passed in Columbus is that the provision which grants an exemption for private clubs has been omitted.

"That's been one of the problems is that you would have restaurants and clubs declaring themselves private clubs, throwing an extra quarter on the bill and saying, 'Welcome to the club,'" Banchefsky said.

He said that removing the private club exemption has no bearing on New Albany Country Club because the club doesn't have a D-4, members-only liquor license.

"We checked all the liquor licenses in the village and that is not the type of license that they have," Banchefsky said.

Banchefsky said the proposed legislation -- which reads much like Columbus's -- also has been modified slightly to clean up some ambiguities.

The New Albany ordinance proposes a total ban in all places of employment.

The ordinance was tabled at the suggestion of council member Dave Olmstead and will be discussed at a workshop on April 19.

If all goes as planned, it could be passed as soon as May 3, the same day Columbus voters will decide if smoking should be allowed again in certain establishments.

Columbus voters will be asked if the city should allow smoking in businesses where at least 65 percent of its revenue derives from alcohol sales.

Hilliard has enacted such a ban. However, there is an effort underway to amend the ban to be more prohibitive.

If New Albany's ban is passed, the village will join Columbus, Dublin, Worthington, Upper Arlington, Powell and Bexley in going smoke free.

Westerville recently wrapped up committee work on the subject and is expected to move forward with its own version of a smoking ban some time this month.

Grandview Heights passed a ban last year, but a referendum to nullify the ban will appear on the November election ballot.

Smoking is still permitted in businesses in Whitehall, Reynoldsburg, Gahanna, Grove City, Canal Winchester, Pickerington, Groveport, Delaware, Sunbury and, for now, New Albany.
http://www.snponline.com/