My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 01/24/05 Mtg
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2005
>
CC Minutes - 01/24/05 Mtg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:28:01 AM
Creation date
3/4/2005 10:31:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
stated that there was no research that a 25-percent open plane surface structure had a significant effect in <br />reducing the problems seen with second-hand smoke. He was also concerned, should this portion of the <br />ordinance pass, that more Oregonians would be exposed to the 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 born 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 could <br />to avoid breathing the smoke. She asked that the council pass the portion of the ordinance that would <br />mandate that smokers stand at least 25 feet away from building entrances, windows, and air intakes. She <br />remarked that if she had all of the power, she would eliminate tobacco altogether. She believed it was worse <br />than marijuana smoking. <br /> <br />Sarah Hendrickson, 1036 Adams Street, Lane County Public Health Officer, listed the many supporters of <br />the ~very original, very successful" smoke-free ordinance, both individuals and groups. She said since the <br />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 and <br />merely made a place smell better. She declared that the 25 percent rule had been based on no precedent by <br />any other city or jurisdiction and was temporarily adopted without opportunity for public comment. <br /> <br />Ms. Hendrickson underscored that Public Health had objected to the rule, both when originally proposed and <br />again when it was proposed to be incorporated into the code language. She stated that the 25 percent rule <br />continued to allow the construction and use of outdoor smoking rooms. She commented that they were <br />nothing similar to what she thought of as a porch. She said building permits had been granted to places <br />other than bars to construct similar rooms. She noted that even the administrative rule had not been truly <br />enforced as enforcement only occurred in response to complaints that were signed and submitted in writing. <br />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 ~polluted" <br />the original intent of the ordinance which was to protect workers and other non-smokers from the ~awful <br />effects" of environmental tobacco smoke, otherwise known as second-hand smoke. He reiterated that there <br />was scientific consensus about the health impacts of second-hand smoke to non-smokers, such as heart <br />disease and emphysema among many. Mr. Jones noted that four years earlier he had cited a study that <br />proved there to be an increase in cancers and heart attacks among bar workers, bartenders, and wait staff. <br />He stated that working in a bar with smoking areas increased the probability of developing angina or heart <br />disease, heart attacks specifically, by 30 percent. He attributed this to platelet aggregation caused by <br />inhaling cigarette smoke. He explained that the smoke caused platelets to ~glom up" and clog arteries. He <br />said scientific evidence suggested that even eating in a restaurant with a smoking area increased the <br />possibility of heart attacks. He stated that recent evidence had led the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to <br />notify all practitioners across the country, as a warning, that even small doses of cigarette smoke could be a <br />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.