| |
Philly Update
If truth were told, people might breathe easier
In his Sept. 14 commentary, "Phila.'s smoking ban long overdue," Dr. Walter Tsou makes a fundamental error that plays on the wording of the engineers of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).
Long-standing lobbying pressure has finally forced ASHRAE to deviate from its normal practice of basing ventilation recommendations on a standard of comfort and make a special exception for a substance deadlier than Saddam Hussein's wildest nightmares: tobacco smoke. ASHRAE has now officially stated that ventilation "should not be relied upon to control health risks from [environmental tobacco smoke] exposure."
If pressed to the wall by a powerful lobbying group, ASHRAE would be forced to make the same statement with regard to everything from cooking fumes to birthday candles: There is no way ventilation could ever be absolutely relied upon to remove all possibly harmful molecules in an air space where cooking or candles exist. Of course, there are no million-dollar anti-cooking or anti-candle lobby groups, so we see no such statements. The reality is that ventilation deals with any possible health risks from secondary smoke just as effectively as it deals with the risks from these or many other possible threats.
Ventilation can not be relied upon to prevent the spread of the flu through sneezes either. Should we ban people from restaurants?
8/12/2005
Online Smoking Bill Survey
Thank you for your interest in participating in our “on-line” survey. Below please find my KYW message on the subject followed by a series of questions we would appreciate your answering. Thanks.
Good morning - this is Mayor John Street.
The City Council of Philadelphia and I are considering a bill which would prohibit
SMOKING in all workplaces WITH SOME NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS. I believe some reasonable smoking ban is appropriate and inevitable in any world class 21st century urban health conscious city.
Over the past 8 months a smoking ban bill has been introduced into City Council; public hearings have been held; a series of amendments to the basic bill have been offered - yet there is still no consensus on the EXTENT OF REGULATION WHICH IS APPROPRIATE.
I do not believe one can genuinely dispute that SIDESTREAM and SECONDHAND smoke pose a significant health risk and justify protecting the
non-smoker from the habit of the SMOKER.
However, as always, the devil is in the detail.
By and large, smokers maintain they should be permitted to SMOKE without
government interference so long as they are not posing a health risk to others. In other words, they say government should "butt out" and not attempt to protect a smoker from himself, so long as SMOKING is legal.
They also argue that the means of protecting the non-smoker from the smoker should only go so far as necessary to protect the non-smoker. The rights of the smoker should otherwise be left intact. This argument should NOT be summarily dismissed, no matter how BAD we believe smoking is to one's health.
Then there are the business owners who claim both rights and equities: They pay taxes; have large capital investments in their businesses, and strongly believe they should have the opportunity to serve SMOKERS as well as NON-SMOKERS, so long as the health of the NON-SMOKER is protected. Now come the EMPLOYEES. Most maintain some interest in being protected from the health hazards of secondhand and sidestream smoke. We agree.
However, others have expressed the view that an employee has a RIGHT to work in a SMOKING workplace so long as an employment opportunity exists. For them - it's a matter of CHOICE.
For example, I am told that up to 80% of the employees who work in BARS SMOKE and that most of the other 20% have no concern about being in a smoking environment. Whether you agree with the estimate or not, it's clear that many employees and employers believe they should have the opportunity to maintain SMOKING ENVIRONMENTS so long as the rights of NON-SMOKERS are protected.
Some even go so far as to argue that government should NOT require that bars be SMOKE FREE (even though it may be legal) because as a practical matter DRINKING and SMOKING go together like MOVIES and POPCORN.
So where are we? Over the last several weeks I have met with many people on
this important and certainly controversial issue.
Practically everyone knows I FAVOR some kind of ban. However, although I am a life-long NON-SMOKER I do not believe I have a right to impose my personal view on the people of our city.
Given the importance of this issue, we need to hear directly from our citizens before recommendations are made and a bill is considered in the fall. Unfortunately, most adults work and cannot attend public hearings.
If you do care, I would love to hear from you through our Internet survey, which you can access by going to www.phila.gov, and clicking on "Online Smoking Survey."
June 1, 2005
Reader note to Jack Kelly, Councilman-at-large:
comments: Please vote Against the Smoking Ban!
We as adults and the free marketplace should have choices. Presently both for and against are accommadated. Thank You for being the only Councilperson to respond back to me on this issue before.
Response:
Dear Mr. ...
Thank you for your e-mail. I will vote against the smoking ban.
Jack Kelly, Councilman-at-large City of Philadelphia 594 City Hall Philadelphia, PA 19107-3290 215.686.3452 office 215.686.1925 fax kelly-at-large@phila.gov
Free to smoke
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
With due respect to Colleen Spiegler's adverse reaction to cigarette smoke ("Blowin' smoke at Dimitri," Letters, May 19 and TribLIVE.com), the issue does not concern her personal comfort and the relative civility of smokers.
Rather, it is about freedom, a concept clearly unfamiliar to those adherents of the victimization mentality. As a patron, what right do I have to force the owner of an establishment to prohibit smoking? If I find the atmosphere to be offensive, then have I not the ability to leave the establishment and spend my money elsewhere?
If enough of my fellow citizens agree with my stance, then the establishment in question undoubtedly will be forced to respond to the diminished demand for their product, which may or may not result in their implementation of a ban on smoking in order to attract customers.
Surely it is Ms. Spiegler, not Dimitri Vassilaros, as she asserts, who is off her rocker if she thinks that a ban on smoking in one's home is not on the horizon. What other policy does she think will result from an activist government entity eager to protect like-minded "victims" from the evils of cigarette smoke?
By her logic, will the "rights of others to breathe clean air" next lead to a ban on other "pollutants" such as automobile exhaust, paint fumes, flower gardens, fertilizer and garlic? After all, isn't it feasible that one could be offended by the odor of any of these items?
For the record, my decision to refrain from smoking is the result of a personal choice, not a government mandate.
Smoking ban gets power nap
April 15, 2005
Stretch, mumble, yawn.
City Council is tired, says Mayor Street.
It's been a trying few months with some "grueling" public hearings - and the mayor's not about to make it even worse, he says, by pressing for that darned smoking ban.
"I'm not lobbying people today about smoking," Street said yesterday of the smoking-ban bill that stalled last month.
That doesn't mean he's giving up, mind you. Rather, he thinks the legislation might have a better shot in the fall, when Council members aren't as distracted by passing a city budget and pay-to-play bills. Trying to squish in the effort to outlaw smoking in virtually all public places at the same time "may have been a mistake," Street said of the legislation introduced by Councilman Michael Nutter.
Tough to say how Nutter feels; he is on a fellowship program this week in South Africa.
3/17/05 11:30
Not Voted On.
Will be back on the agenda in a few weeks.
Withdraws his anti-smoking bill in face of certain defeat
ON A ST. PATRICK'S Day when tavern owners were hoping for high volume business, they got something even better, a present from a Philadelphia City Council that deadlocked and then delayed action on a smoking ban bill.
It was a day when City Councilman Rick Mariano proved to be the better nose counter than his colleague Michael Nutter, who sponsored the Street administration bill.
Nutter had predicted victory while Mariano said Council was split evenly (8 to 8 with Joan Krajewski absent) over the bill.
Mariano, a non-smoker who says smoking bans in public places are the wave of the future, was the floor leader on behalf of the corner bar owners who see economic ruin in a smoking ban.
A smoking ban may be in the future, Mariano said, "but we can't do it on the backs of people who try to make a living in these public houses."
Nutter said Council should enact the ban now. "We have the power to change lives. We have the power to save lives," he said. "That is the essence of public service and the reason I came here."
But as the voting started, with Jannie Blackwell and Darrell Clarke having voted "no" and David Cohen "yes," Nutter apparently learned the new math and threw in the towel, saying the bill could be amended.
Adding to his day of woe, which included a defeat on his pay-to-play ethics bill, Nutter also failed to convince his colleagues that they should vote the existing or amended bill by March 31. His colleagues wanted no part of that.
Mariano said it might come up in three or four weeks, but he added, "It's not going to be two years." In a later interview, he predicted a final vote by September or October.
In the aftermath, several Council opponents of the ban said they want to see "carve outs." For example, Councilman James Kenney said smoking should be permitted at outdoor cafes, inside private clubs and at the corner bars.
Nutter said the sidewalk cafes are venues that could be exempted. "I'd have been pleased to exempt them this time, but the issue didn't come up," he said.
Kenney pointed out that while the bill is generally viewed as a total smoking ban in public places, there is an exemption for "tobacco products distribution businesses," where tobacco products but not food or beverages are sold retail or wholesale and consumed on and off premises.
"If we can make carve outs for certain companies, we can do some for others including small taprooms and taverns," Kenney said. "I think the issue of the sidewalk café was a little ridiculous. You are outside on the sidewalk. You should be able to smoke."
Speaking outside Council chambers, Nutter said he was willing to entertain changes. "I'm going to listen to the conversation but I'm not interested in moving away from the fundamental principles of protecting workers in their workplaces," he said.
But pulling back on an almost total ban by making more exceptions could turn supporters into opponents.
For example, City Councilman Brian O'Neill, who opposed Nutter's original smoking ban bill four years ago because it created too many winners and losers, now supports the almost total ban because "it's fair and treats everyone the same."
O'Neill told his colleagues that the "restaurant and bar are the last place you can blow smoke in somebody's face and get away with it." If a total ban comes, "people will step outside at their corner bar" to smoke.
Though Nutter clearly suffered a loss, his partner in defeat was Mayor Street who was missing in action. In recent weeks, Street spoke forcefully in favor of the bill and met with various groups.
But a chronic back problem kept him at home on Wednesday and yesterday. Two of his closest allies on Council, Darrell Clarke and Donna Miller, never got a hard sell from the mayor.
Asked if she'd talked to Street prior to the vote, Miller said, "The mayor has not talked to me at all and if you'd stop writing that I'm a puppet of the mayor then you'll understand that. I am an ally and the Mayor never called me."
With the bill stalled, Miller said it's time to sit down and fashion a compromise that will not hurt the bar owners.
At the other end of the spectrum is Councilman David Cohen, who said, "I think it's time to stop being so nice and polite to smokers... Nobody is saying you have to stop smoking, but what we are saying is you have no right to go out and pollute the public areas and endanger the lives of other people who choose to eat or drink in taverns and restaurants without being threatened with serious illness or death." http://www.philly.com/
March 16, 2005
Reader note to Jack Kelly, Councilman-at-large:
comments:Please vote against the smoking ban! We as adults and constituents need choices. The marketplace has designated areas to satisfy both sides of this issue. Thank You
Response:
Dear ....
Thank you for informing me of your views on the issue of the smoking ban. It's very gratifying to see that there are so many people in Philadelphia who share our opinion that a smoking ban should be the decision of the individual establishment, and not a governmental regulatory matter.
I appreciate your taking the time to e-mail me.
Sincerely,
Jack Kelly, Councilman-at-large
City of Philadelphia
594 City Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3290
215.686.3452 office
215.686.1925 fax
POLITICIANS STAMPEDE TOWARD BAD BAN
THE LEMMINGS are racing toward the cliff.
Stampeded by a notion that "everybody's doing it," misleading science, "clever" polling and a zealous desire to "save" less than 1 percent of the workforce, City Council is poised to enact a ham-handed, unnecessary, draconian ban on smoking in public places that extends even to private clubs.
Before you dive over the cliff, Dear Council, divorce yourself from the ripe rhetoric. Ask more questions.
You've heard about cities - even whole countries! - banning smoking.
If you buy the "they do it, so we should do it" argument, understand the first European government to ban smoking was... the Third Reich. Yes, the real Nazis were the first Nicotine Nazis.
How about jurisdictions that reject or amend bans? In the past month alone, the Virginia Senate defeated a restaurant smoking ban 26-14; a ban was defeated in North Dakota's House of Representatives 47-45; the Montana House of Representatives exempted bars and casinos from state smoking ban rules by 58-42; Indiana voted to scale back a smoking ban to simply require family restaurants to offer nonsmoking sections. There are many more.
The Great Satan is "second-hand smoke," also called "passive smoking," and "environmental tobacco smoke." It's got more aliases than a Mafia hitman.
Dear Council, most smokers DON'T die from smoking. A third die "prematurely" from "smoking-related" causes, estimates Andy Hyland, a research scientist with the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, who testified before you. That's "smoking-related," not smoking-caused, and half of those deaths occur in people over 70. That doesn't sound all that premature.
The chance of a nonsmoker dying of "second-hand smoke" is infinitesimal. I do not say it can't happen; I do say it is not a raging monster of death and disease. Tobacco is but one of many factors affecting health, which is why some countries have higher smoking rates yet lower cancer rates than do we. Would that be true if tobacco were the only villain and if second-hand smoke were as deadly as some claim?
Did EPA tilt stats?
The landmark EPA report that first linked second-hand smoke to cancer has been attacked as bad science by one side, defended by the other. I believe, based on my reading, the EPA tilted the stats toward a desired outcome. Am I sure? No. Are you sure they didn't? (The flawless EPA currently is accused of publishing incorrect auto mileage figures.)
As we age, we are more likely to die of cancer or heart disease - even if not exposed to smoke. But if you smoked - ever, no matter how little - by God, the Nicotine Nazis will insist that's what killed you.
In a recent letter to the Daily News, American Cancer Society Regional Vice President Patrick Delaney wrote that a "large majority (76 percent) of Philadelphians favor prohibiting smoking in workplaces, including bars and restaurants."
Those polled were asked which of two statements they most agreed with.
1. As long as smoking is a legal activity, people should be allowed to smoke inside public places such as offices and restaurants even if it means others may be exposed to second-hand smoke.
2. Even though smoking is a legal activity, people should NOT be allowed to smoke inside public places such as offices and restaurants if it means others may be exposed to the effects of second-hand smoke.
Delaney mentioned bars, which the poll question did not. An innocent mistake?
The poll was rigged by including "second-hand smoke," which many Americans have been led to believe is deadly as a cobra. Dear Council, would the results would have been the same if the question had been worded:
Being as smoking is legal and keeps your taxes low because of the staggering tax load on cigarettes, should it be permitted in public as long as smoke is kept away from nonsmokers?
Carcinogens in salad
Yes, second-hand smoke contains carcinogens and carcinogens "can" kill - even carcinogens in your health salad.
Testifying before you, Dear Council, Michael McFadden, author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains," held up a glass of water and said it contained arsenic, a carcinogen found in tobacco smoke. "The same amount of arsenic... would be inhaled by a typical 'passive smoker' while sitting in a room with a smoker smoking 165,000 cigarettes," he told me.
Lots of things are carcinogenic, but it's the amount that counts, and most of the toxins in cigarettes are quite low. (McFadden recommends www.smokersclubinc.com for a wealth of info.)
Tobacco smoke contains 4,000 "chemicals," the American Heart Association says, but admits only "40 are capable of causing cancer." Just capable, not does. Why mention the other 3,960 "chemicals?" Scare tactic?
Dear Council, reducing unwanted smoke is a good goal that can be achieved by insulating smokers from nonsmokers with top-of-the-line air-filtration systems or even by closed smoking rooms (which were created in some Ireland pubs after the ban).
You don't have to dive over the cliff.
Haze of opinion hangs over the plan to ban
March 09, 2005
By Rory Sweene Inquirer Staff Writer
Jim McCarty says a citywide smoking ban will help him quit. Quit going to Philadelphia's bars and restaurants, that is.
"Instead of coming here, I'll go straight home after work," said McCarty, a 48-year-old construction foreman from Palmyra.
News of the impending City Council vote to ban smoking in almost all public places, including bars and restaurants, didn't sit well yesterday with McCarty and other smokers at Kelliann's, a neighborhood bar on the corner of Spring Garden and 16th Streets.
The vote on the ban, which is sponsored by nine of the city's 17 Council members, is scheduled for March 17.
The smell of cigarettes and ashtrays full of evidence warned of carcinogenic fumes at Kelliann's, but a palpable crosswind through the tunnel-like taproom and swirling ceiling fans belied a ban already in effect.
At the well-worn bar, McCarty and his fellow construction workers good-naturedly fired arguments at one another. The smokers' objections ranged from "taxation without representation" to a lack of "comfort time," while nonsmokers offered health-related defenses.
In the end, democracy ruled, as the patrons, smokers and nonsmokers alike, decided there should be choice.
"Why can't there be some bars that are deemed as smoking and some that are nonsmoking?" asked McCarty, who said he liked to kick back and smoke at a bar after being "beat to death at work all day."
Len Fernandez, a 27-year-old smoker from Northeast Philadelphia, agreed, saying the ban would eliminate that down-time.
"You won't be able to be comfortable," Fernandez said. "Every time you want to light up, you'll have to go outside. You might as well drink a beer at home."
Even the bartender, whom the ban is meant to protect from hours of second-hand smoke inhalation, took issue with it.
"If [the smoke] is that big of a problem, don't get into the business," said bartender Brenna McGinnis, 23, who lives in the Fairmount area and smokes.
Besides, she added, it's hypocritical to ban smoking at places where drinking is still legal.
"The two go hand in hand. They're both bad for you," she said.
Pat Ahern, 38, a nonsmoker from Gibbsboro, N.J., agreed that secondhand smoke came with that kind of workplace. Though he was drinking drafts with his coworkers rather than pouring them yesterday, he had been a bartender for more than three years and switched to full-time work in construction "not even a year ago."
"I like bartending. The only part I don't like is the smoke, but that's the business you're in," Ahern said. "It's kind of like if you're a celebrity. You don't like paparazzi following you around, but that's part of the job."
According to smokefreeworld.com, various bans on smoking in public places or workplaces exist in part or all of 30 states and most of Washington, except in Congress.
The potential ban is a sobering thought for Dennis and John O'Connor, owners of two Kelliann's bars. They are thinking about opening a third bar in Northern Liberties. If the ban passes, they will open it in Chester County, instead.
"I know my business and I know my customers. A lot of [them] come from the suburbs. I expect initially I'll lose 30 percent of my business" at the Kelliann's on Spring Garden Street, Dennis O'Connor said, adding that he would have to lay off some of the nine employees there.
One exception to the ban is for businesses that have sales of 15 percent or more related to tobacco products.
To avoid the ban, Dennis O'Connor said he might try to increase his sales of tobacco products, which now are about 8 percent of his business.
"I'd sell cartons at cost if I had to," he said.
As the wind blew and freezing rain and snow fell outside, McCarty puffed on his cigarette, gripped his glass and wondered what he would do if the ban went into effect. "I just hope they provide us a tent," he said.
Smoking On Private Property
Most individuals would never dream of banding together and demanding legislation that forces the owner of a restaurant business to change its menu to satisfy some group’s diet requirements. Or for that matter, it would be considered thuggish for citizens to demand police raids to enforce legislation requiring a specific décor that might make yet another group’s dining experience more appealing. The same might be said for legislation requiring music to remain below a certain volume as to not distract from patrons’ conversation or hurt their hearing.
Panelists debate merits of smoking ban in city
By maria lenis
February 24, 2005
City Councilman Michael Nutter recently proposed a bill that would ban smoking in almost all public places in Philadelphia if approved by the City Council.
A forum was held Tuesday to address the effects of the bill, but discussion instead centered on the positive and negative aspects of smoking, as well as whether the government has the right to intervene.
Deirdre MacDermott, business manager of the White Dog Cafe -- which banned smoking eight years ago -- said she wished the city would pass the smoking ban.
Because of the enthusiasm shown by non-smokers after the restaurant chose to ban smoking, she is doubtful the enactment of the proposed ban would hurt other establishments' sales.
"This is not about saying to smokers, 'We don't welcome you.' We do welcome you. We just don't welcome your smoking," she said.
MacDermott believes that workers don't always have the ability to choose where they work, whereas smokers can choose not to smoke or to do it elsewhere.
Under Pennsylvania law, smoking has been prohibited in all enclosed public places other than designated smoking areas since 1998.
According to the American Cancer Society, second-hand smoke is responsible for an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease and about 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year, as well as respiratory problems in non-smokers.
Yet, to panelist Michael McFadden, author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains, all this evidence is questionable. McFadden said the studies conducted on second-hand smoke had been twisted and that no action should be taken to dissuade people from smoking in public spaces.
"It could be that smoking even prevents you from getting cancer. Who knows?" the West Philadelphia resident said.
School of Design graduate student Jade Shipman, who represented the Penn Office of Health Education, said that the ban was "not about keeping people from smoking," but rather "about keeping people from smoking in places where it would harm others."
In contrast to Shipman -- who believes the government has the right to ban smoking in public -- Joe Leibrandt, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Philadelphia, said the government should protect citizens' lives and liberty and leave it to the free market to let "people to choose where to eat, drink and yes, smoke."
Leibrandt also pointed out that the smoking ban leaves a loophole; places with a significant percentage of their revenue coming from tobacco are exempted from the ban.
Bar And Restaurant Owners Rally Against Smoking Ban
Feb 24, 2005
PHILADELPHIA (AP) Opponents of a proposed public smoking ban packed a City Hall conference room Wednesday to urge lawmakers to let the voters decide the issue.
About 150 members and supporters of the Philadelphia Hospitality and Business Alliance who were in attendance said that Councilman Michael Nutter’s proposed ban was another example of how the city overregulates and overtaxes bars and restaurants.
Councilman Rick Mariano challenged Nutter to let voters decide whether the city should implement a smoking ban by putting the issue to a referendum.
“What’s happening here is, City Council is being Big Brother,” Mariano said. “They’re sticking their face and their nose in your businesses.”
Nutter said Council members were elected to pass laws and make tough decisions.
Odds are smoking ban won't apply in parlors
By CHRIS BRENNANPosted on Thu, Feb. 10, 2005
HARRISBURG - If Philadelphia tries to snuff out smoking in the workplace, the rule in the city's two planned slot machine parlors may still be, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."
The law that last year legalized 61,000 slot machines in 14 venues across the state gives the new Gaming Control Board total control over where slot parlors are located and how they are run. And Christopher Craig, an attorney for state Senate Democrats who was instrumental in writing the law, yesterday said Philadelphia would likely have trouble keeping gamblers from lighting up.
Mayor Street last week sent legislation to City Council, introduced by Councilman Michael Nutter, that would ban smoking in most public and private places where people work.
Street's spokesman, Dan Fee, yesterday said the mayor's staff is still trying to determine if the slots law would exempt gaming parlors from a local smoking ban.
"We hope that it does not pre-empt it," Fee said.
Nutter, who pushed a smoking ban in 2000 that stalled politically, yesterday said he thinks the effort should apply to slot parlors.
"This is not a zoning matter," Nutter said. "This is a public health matter."
Street and Nutter have focused on the impact of smoking on employees.
"If a gaming facility is a workplace, and I think it is, I would take the position that it is covered," Nutter said.
The question came up yesterday during a Harrisburg seminar on the slots industry, which is now being created.
Wayne Lemons, director of the Delaware Lottery, said gaming parlors in his state saw a temporary 12 percent decline in business when forced to go smoke-free three years ago.
Linda Kassekert, chairwoman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, said gaming in her state enjoyed a bump up in business at the same time. New Jersey's legislature is now considering a public smoking ban.
"Right now, casinos are exempt," Kassekert said of the proposed law. "That could change."
Pennsylvania's Gaming Control Board could not say yesterday if the slots law would preempt smoking in Philadelphia.
"That's a great question," said board member Chip Marshall. "I never thought, would we get involved in stuff like that?"
Chairman Tad Decker said he wants to know more about the slots law and its impact on a potential smoking ban.
Decker and Marshall emphasized that the law allows municipalities with gaming facilities a 60-day period to offer input before slots licenses are awarded.
Street is putting together a local gaming advisory board to gather the city's views about gaming into a report.
Delco opinions mixed on Phily smoking ban -PA
By SOLOMON D. LEACH, 02/09/2005
UPPER DARBY - Bar and restaurant owners in Eastern Delaware County could be seeing more ashes in their trays soon. What remains less clear is whether or not there would be a warm reception to them.
The discussion came about after Philadelphia City Councilman Michael Nutter introduced a bill last week - with Mayor John Street's backing - that would make it the first city in the state to ban smoking in almost all workplaces, including bars, pubs, taverns and restaurants.
Nutter's proposed bill would prohibit smoking in any enclosed space in which one or more employees work. The only exceptions in the city would be businesses whose on-site sale of tobacco or tobacco-related products make up 15 percent or more of gross sales.
If the bill is passed, there is a chance that places like Heidi's Tavern on Marshall Road or Cawley's Tavern on West Chester Pike could suddenly become safe havens for Philadelphia smokers seeking acceptance and a place away from the cold.
Would this mean an economic boom, or an intrusion on intimate neighborhood dining spots and watering holes just outside the city?
Five days after the bill's introduction, the reaction is still mixed.
"I think it would affect [business] in the beginning until people figure it out," said Bob Williams, manager of R.P. McMurphy's restaurant. "We might get more business, who knows?"
Last year, when similar legislation transformed bordering Delaware into a smoke-free state, a few taverns in Lower Chichester reported an increase in business and patronage. However, Williams is not optimistic that a ban in Philadelphia would have a sustained impact on the surrounding townships. In his words, the boom would only last for "a short period of time." "After everybody gets all the crinkles out of the system and figures it out, it will be business as usual. It's just a matter of people figuring out a new system," he claims.
Another restaurant owner, Jeff McKinney, was somewhat torn about how the possible changes might alter operations at his two Nick's Old Original Roast Beef eateries - one in Springfield and one in Philadelphia.
"Yes, I do believe Philly people would go to the suburbs and frequent places where you can smoke," he said. "Just by seeing what happened in Delaware you can tell. It will affect business and it will affect the entire tax base."
On the flip side, McKinney speculates that the gains he would experience at his Springfield location would not be enough to balance the losses he would suffer in the City of Brotherly Love.
"In the city, I'm going to lose tons of people," he said. "Out here, I'm not sure."
The pending ban could influence his decision on where to set up his third establishment, he added. Instead of Philadelphia, he might consider another site in the suburbs or begin to explore New Jersey.
Should the bill come to fruition, most workers recognize it would have a two-fold effect: It could serve as a stimulus for monetary gain, but it could also cause more domestic disruption.
"I would assume that it would be a good thing in a business sense, but it could be a bad thing in the type of crowd you get," remarked Heidi's employee, Garry Logan.
Councilman Nutter brought forth a similar bill in 2000 that was struck down, but this time he has eight co-sponsors, including seven council members and Council President Anna C. Verna. That, along with a verbal endorsement by Mayor Street, should make getting nine out of a possible 18 votes a strong possibility. According to Legislative Aide William Carter, the bill is currently being scrutinized by a committee, which could take up to three weeks, and will likely confront even more criticism from residents and club clientele.
While the outcome of the bill remains uncertain, Delaware County resident and bartender Gina Tanni has already contemplated the influence the ban would have on her social life.
"I'm a smoker myself, and I would probably be in the suburbs a lot more often," said Tanni. "When I get off work, I like to go to the city and go to some of the clubs, so I'd be hanging around the neighborhood a lot more often."
City Smoking Ban Proposed
Feb 3, 2005
PHILADELPHIA (AP) Philadelphia City Councilman Michael Nutter has introduced a bill to ban smoking in virtually all public spaces in Philadelphia.
Four years ago, Nutter tried to ban smoking in restaurants and other public spaces. That measure died in the face of opposition from tavern owners who said it would hurt their business. Nutter says the real opposition came from the tobacco industry.
Nutter says his new proposal is even more restrictive. It would include bars. Nutter is working with Mayor Street, who has said one of his first priorities this year will be getting a citywide ban on smoking in public places.
http://kyw.com/Local%20News/local_story_034130532.html
(An article about the upcoming ban inspired a letter that was published in February's Philadelphia City Paper. The author would like it noted that the headline was NOT his idea.)
Screw the Surgeon General
In [Food, "Pack Mentality," Juliet Fletcher, Jan. 20, 2005], City Paper wrote "Some local bar and restaurant owners are happy with the proposed smoking ban." Sounds like bar owners really don't mind, right? Well, once you read the [whole] article, you find that the writer couldn't actually find even a single owner who was "happy" with the ban. One bar owner whose bar banned smoking on its own five years ago simply said that in his unique case it hadn't hurt his business, while another shrugged his shoulders and said, "It's going to happen."
So, what's with the misleading line? Simple. It's the propaganda game antismokers have learned to play very well: Lie about everything and use the money from taxes on smokers to make sure your lies get better play than anything an opponent says. Lie about the effects of secondary smoke and how the ban is being "welcomed" by people. Those who fight the bans are more honest: anyone with access to a computer can check out the disastrous effects smoking bans have had on real businesses, in real locations, run by real people simply by going to www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm. In New York alone, several of us who searched newspaper articles and e-mailed with bar owners found more than 160 businesses hurt by or closed down by their smoking ban.
The anti-smoking lobby has the biggest and most expensive microphone on the block, but the truth will beat them in the end.
Street to advocate ban on smoking
Rules could include restaurants, bars and other public places
January 11, 2005
By bruno valle
Mayor John Street recently announced that one of his main legislative goals for 2005 is the implementation of a smoking ban in Philadelphia's restaurants, bars and other public spaces.
The Philadelphia City Council is currently not in session, but the smoking ban will be one of the possible bills discussed during the first meeting on Jan. 26th.
Student smokers are likely to find their indoor smoking possibilities further limited; University regulations currently prohibit smoking in nonresidential buildings except in certain designated areas.
"Currently, it seems as if there would be little opposition to the ban," said Street spokeswoman Deborah Bolling, "but we can't be sure, since the Council isn't in session."
Bolling added that though some bar or restaurant owners might be opposed to the proposal, they should be open-minded to the bill due to the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Mayor to Push for Public Smoking Ban
December 29, 2004
Philadelphia Mayor John Street says one of his first priorities for the new year will be getting a citywide ban on smoking in public places.
Street says the bill "is pretty much a total ban."
He says it would include prohibiting smoking in barrooms.
Street does not smoke or drink.
Smoking ban has foes, unlikely allies
December 31, 2004
It will certainly be no walk in the park for Mayor Street to get the smoking ban he wants in restaurants, bars, and other public places.
Consider that by Wednesday, less than 24 hours after the mayor announced he would push for such legislation after the New Year, the battle lines were in place.
While Street hinted at an emphasis on the health risks posed to the people who work in smoke-filled places, a group that opposes the ban put the spotlight on diners and drinkers.
"We stay in business by giving our customers the choices they want," said Jim Flanigan, owner of Flanigan's Boathouse. His words were part of an opposition paper, if you will, issued by the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association and its Philadelphia-based chapter. Both have successfully fought attempts to ban smoking in past years.
But just as there are old foes, there are old allies. And for Street in this case, that's City Councilman Michael A. Nutter, who has been pushing for smoking restrictions since 2000.
|
|
