This ordinance has proved utterly pointless. You can’t fix what ain’t broke.

If all of you believe that you don’t have the wherewithal to make an informed choice as to where you’ll spend your evenings out, you don’t deserve freedom. Those of us who do understand freedom and property rights, and take the responsibility of those rights seriously, don’t appreciate the rest of you nanny-state busybodies dictating it away with your weak ‘public health’ justifications.

If you don’t want to breathe SHS, don’t go to places where it’s allowed! The truth is that you people are willing to sacrifice small business owners’ property rights, their livelihood, jobs, tax revenue, police man hours for enforcement, and the freedom to choose for your own spoiled-rotten desire to be able to go out wherever you wish on a Saturday night without having to worry about the inconvenience of secondhand smoke. The market is already responding! Why do you need a legislated ban? There are plenty of places to eat and drink that don’t allow smoking, and their numbers are growing by the day.

Perhaps we should ban driving, as well? People know the risks of driving and riding in a motor vehicle, yet they continue to drive. How frightening! Are these people ignorant? Obviously they don’t understand the dangers that riding in a motor vehicle presents! It must be stopped!

http://www.banthebanwisconsin.com

Our transition went smoothly and we were happy to be able to decrease health risks, fire risks, and maintenance costs. As an additional bonus, our property and liability insurance premiums went down, and we found that smokefree is an amenity much in demand among potential tenants.

It has been almost twenty years since we began to see smokefree restaurants, then workplaces, bars, parks and beaches, and now cars with children present. But we spend the largest number of hours of each day in our home, and that seems to be the next place to see similar protection.

Unlike drugs or alcohol or other risky behaviors which primarily injure the participant, secondhand smoke also injures and kills others. And it is not just through lung cancer, but other cancers and asthma.

We expect our municipalities to protect us from those who might do us harm with guns and knives. But secondhand smoke kills more citizens than either. Albany, please follow the lead of other communities and take these basic steps on behalf of public health.

Given that Francesco Papalia has run for Albany city council and could possibly run again, I think it is worth comparing his viewpoint to that of Mayor Lieber.

I think what I have written accurately represents what each person said but may not be exactly what they said.

Papalia: “This ordinance is not about health policy but about government regulatory excess…. I did not know that I have been living here in Albany for the last 20 years in the smoking equivalent of Love Canal…..Written in the ordinance are a bunch of whereas clauses. ‘Whereas cigarette butts pose a health risk to young children as evidenced by the following. In 2004 American Poison Control Centers received nearly 8,000 reports of children poisoned by the ingestion of cigarette butts and children who ingest cigarette butts can experience vomiting, nausea, lethargy and gagging.’ This is actually in the ordinance. I did not know that in Albany we had this crisis with children picking up cigarette butts and getting sick, but I guess that you are here to save the day.”

Mayor Lieber: “I have the experience of three times in my life of being in an emergency room and treating a child who is under three who has ingested cigarette butts. And they are really, really sick and it is a horrible thing.”

I took a look and have reviewed the State of California’s “Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant” (Parts A and B). Most of the research presented in this report on secondhand smoke focused on children who had one or more smokers in the household. There is clear evidence that exposing infants and young children to secondhand smoke negatively impacts their development.

The report did not show any substantiative data that indicates *casual* exposure to ‘environmental tobacco smoke’ (ETS) causes problems. Several of the other papers (which I admittedly only skimmed) on the Phillip Morris website studied damages which were caused by secondhand smoke inside of “microenvironments” (buildings).

Prohibiting smoking inside of dense, enclosed spaces such as restaurants, offices and other buildings clearly minimized casual exposure to ETS. However, when nonsmokers are in an environment that has open air circulation, the exposure level is substantially lowered. Therefore, I do not understand how this particular ordinance is supposed to benefit the public’s health.

Here is the Phi;lip Morris web site and a quote from that site.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/Secondhand_Smoke/default.aspx?src=search

“Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.”

It is important that people be reminded about the dangers of tobacco smoke and that even in outdoor areas tobacco smoke can devastate those with vulnerabilities. If people understood the dangers and had the desire to act on that knowledge governments would be doing more to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution.

Since over 40 million Americans smoke, it is clear that many people did not recognize the dangers of mainstream smoking at the time they became addicted. Being able to answer YES on a questionnaire to the question, “Is smoking dangerous?” is a lot different than taking actions based on the scientific evidence. That is a reason why people start smoking and often do not object to being exposed to tobacco smoke. Few people would object to tobacco smoke exposure to the extent they would object to asbestos exposure.

For example, the school district will have to go to extraordinary lengths to protect the school children from potential asbestos exposure when the current swimming pool structure is demolished.

You quote one speaker, Francesco Papalia, a former unsuccessful candidate for the Albany council, as saying “This ordinance is not about health policy, but about governmental regulatory excess.”

Those who control the terms of the debate often win the debate. As a public health advocate I want the debate to be about health. Instead those who back the tobacco industry position want the debate to be about anything but health. You captured the anti-health position with Francesco’s quote, but you do not even think that the health arguments should be covered because supposedly everyone knows about it.

Of greater interest to me is to what extent those who are opposing the smokefree ordinance are part of a coordinated effort and to what extent that group sees this as a potential political opportunity. No one has explored that angle. Is Francesco going to run for the council again and use this issue as part of his campaign? I do not have the answers, but I would like to know the answers.

In Berkeley the business community supported smokefree and in fact they were the ones who proposed banning smoking in their entire commercial district. Here, the Chamber and the Solano Avenue Association have not been present at the 9 hearings even though they knew about the hearings.

So it seems to me that some politically motivated people, perhaps people with electoral ambitions, are trying to develop a campaign with a pro-smoking agenda.

Covering that angle would have been an interesting story.

Calling the debate “controversial” in the headline of a news story is editorializing in a news article, in my view. Then many of the standard tobacco industry arguments were repeated. As I mentioned in my comment, there was no need to list them as Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights of Berkeley, California has posted the standard tobacco industry strategy to deflect the debate away from the health issue.

I again point out that the article did not even mention the most important provision, the one about smokefree housing. Also a city official who was quoted in the article says she was misquoted.

I think the article has a slant from its title, from the fact those who lost were quoted first (above the line) and from the fact that health issues were minimized and from the fact the most important provision was not even mentioned.

As for the ordinance, I think it has some good provisions. I think the draft was poorly written and is nonstandard. I am disappointed that a number of my suggestions were never heard. I am very disappointed with the process. Albany needs to improve its committee process. This took entirely too long for something that I see as noncontroversial.

I’m a nonsmoker, and don’t appreciate having to walk through clouds of smoke when I’m out, but the majority of smokers do try to be discreet. But I am concerned about the research presented, so I did a quick look on my own. Of the +400,000 deaths smoking-related deaths in 2001, CDC’s (2001) statistics indicate that the mortality rate from smoking roughly follows the average general mortality rate along the age line. That is, about 68% smoking-related deaths are attributable to people over 70. Overall, 70% deaths from all causes are attributable to people over 70.

Since this ordinance relates to secondhand smoke, could someone tell me where one might find resources about the mortality rate resulting from secondhand smoke? Unfortunately, that wasn’t available from the CDC.

Thanks a lot for posting the comment. You provided a very different perspective on the issue that could be valuable to the readers of Albany Today, especially because you are the person who proposed the ordinance.

However, I wish you could write more about your opinions on the ordinance than attack the article. I don’t think readers need me to tell them how harmful tobacco is to public health. I truthfully introduced the debates at the Council meeting in the article, thus the readers would not only know about the ordinance, but also get some information about public opinions and politics in Albany.

No controversy about smoke? Google FORCES INTERNATIONAL .

You don’t have to prove a thing when you repeat the claptrap about preventable death. Because you can’t.

Although 80% of the Albany council voted for the ordinance, the article starts out with the usual tobacco industry arguments, all assertions given, as usual, without any basis in fact. For an even more extensive list of tobacco industry tactics on how to divert attention from the very real health issues go to http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=241

The author of the article states that enforcement could be troublesome and then gives the impression that those who made outlandish statements about police enforcement actually understand how police would enforce the ordinance. In fact during the debate city officials pointed out that the police would be able to use their judgment. Moreover, there are no problems enforcing the current Albany ordinance and Berkeley police officers have not reported having difficulty enforcing their ordinance the last time I asked.

As for signs, Berkeley simply had student volunteers distribute them to businesses. That was done over an extensive area. Albany is much smaller and the area covered is much more limited. Berkeley has already posted signs on Solano Avenue.

This article lists even more of the traditional tobacco industry arguments, but who has time to respond to all of them? The previous web link provides appropriate rejoinders.

Actually the article did not even mention what is perhaps the most important section of the ordinance, the requirement that landlords inform potential tenants of their smoking policies.

Smoking is the biggest cause of preventable death in the United States, killing over 400,000 each year. Let us hope that next time the local media will do a better job of reporting on efforts to control this deadly killer.