My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A - Minutes Approval
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 02/14/05 Mtg
>
Item 2A - Minutes Approval
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:23:46 PM
Creation date
2/10/2005 10:16:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/14/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
concerned, should this portion of the ordinance pass, that more Oregonians would be exposed to the <br />dangers of second-hand smoke. <br /> <br />Kira Fonarow, 1601 Olive Street, Apartment 612, said she was a 22-year-old University of Oregon <br />student. She explained that she had been bom with small lungs. She stressed that this made it difficult for <br />her to be around cigarette smokers. She thought smokers were disrespectful of the needs of others when <br />congregating around doors and windows to smoke. It caused her to hold her breath for as long as she <br />could to avoid breathing the smoke. She asked that the council pass the portion of the ordinance that <br />would mandate that smokers stand at least 25 feet away from building entrances, windows, and air intakes. <br />She remarked that if she had all of the power, she would eliminate tobacco altogether. She believed it was <br />worse than marijuana smoking. <br /> <br />Sarah Itendrickson, 1036 Adams Street, Lane County Public Health Officer, listed the many supporters <br />of the "very original, very successful" smoke-free ordinance, both individuals and groups. She said since <br />the passage of the law, the worker protection goals of the ordinance had been undermined in response to <br />pressure by bar owners, which resulted in an administrative rule that declared an arbitrary 25 percent open <br />to the air to be the same as smoking outside. Ms. Hendrickson averred this rule was based on no evidence <br />whatsoever. She stated that there was a vast quantity of air circulation data from entities such as the <br />American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRE). She said a safe <br />ventilation standard for environmental tobacco smoke had not been set because ventilation did not work <br />and merely made a place smell better. She declared that the 25 percent rule had been based on no <br />precedent by any other city or jurisdiction and was temporarily adopted without opportunity for public <br />comment. <br /> <br />Ms. Hendricksonunderscored that Public Health had objected to the rule, both when originally proposed <br />and again when it was proposed to be incorporated into the code language. She stated that the 25 percent <br />rule continued to allow the construction and use of outdoor smoking rooms. She commented that they <br />were nothing similar to what she thought of as a porch. She said building permits had been granted to <br />places other than bars to construct similar rooms. She noted that even the administrative rule had not been <br />truly enforced as enforcement only occurred in response to complaints that were signed and submitted in <br />writing. She asserted that workers who were likely to complain were not likely to sign such a complaint. <br /> <br />Martin Jones, 2300 Parkside Lane, said he was a practicing internist who had worked with the Tobacco <br />Free Coalition of Lane County four years earlier to pass the ordinance. He wished to speak specifically <br />against the administrative rule. He felt the rule to allow covered smoking areas undermined and <br />"polluted" the original intent of the ordinance which was to protect workers and other non-smokers from <br />the "awful effects" of environmental tobacco smoke, otherwise known as second-hand smoke. He <br />reiterated that there was scientific consensus about the health impacts of second-hand smoke to non- <br />smokers, such as heart disease and emphysema among many. Mr. Jones noted that four years earlier he <br />had cited a study that proved there to be an increase in cancers and heart attacks among bar workers, <br />bartenders, and wait staff. He stated that working in a bar with smoking areas increased the probability of <br />developing angina or heart disease, heart attacks specifically, by 30 percent. He attributed this to platelet <br />aggregation caused by inhaling cigarette smoke. He explained that the smoke caused platelets to "glom <br />up" and clog arteries. He said scientific evidence suggested that even eating in a restaurant with a <br />smoking area increased the possibility of heart attacks. He stated that recent evidence had led the Center <br />for Disease Control (CDC) to notify all practitioners across the country, as a warning, that even small <br />doses of cigarette smoke could be a precipitant to heart attacks. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 10 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.