CC Minutes - 01/24/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stated that there was no research that a 25-percent open plane surface structure had a significant effect in reducing the problems seen with second-hand smoke. He was also concerned, should this portion of the ordinance pass, that more Oregonians would be exposed to the dangers of second-hand smoke. Kira Fonarow, 1601 Olive Street, Apartment 612, said she was a 22-year-old University of Oregon student. She explained that she had been born with small lungs. She stressed that this made it difficult for her to be around cigarette smokers. She thought smokers were disrespectful of the needs of others when congregating around doors and windows to smoke. It caused her to hold her breath for as long as she could to avoid breathing the smoke. She asked that the council pass the portion of the ordinance that would mandate that smokers stand at least 25 feet away from building entrances, windows, and air intakes. She remarked that if she had all of the power, she would eliminate tobacco altogether. She believed it was worse than marijuana smoking. Sarah Hendrickson, 1036 Adams Street, Lane County Public Health Officer, listed the many supporters of the ~very original, very successful" smoke-free ordinance, both individuals and groups. She said since the passage of the law, the worker protection goals of the ordinance had been undermined in response to pressure by bar owners, which resulted in an administrative rule that declared an arbitrary 25 percent open to the air to be the same as smoking outside. Ms. Hendrickson averred this rule was based on no evidence whatsoever. She stated that there was a vast quantity of air circulation data from entities such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRE). She said a safe ventilation standard for environmental tobacco smoke had not been set because ventilation did not work and merely made a place smell better. She declared that the 25 percent rule had been based on no precedent by any other city or jurisdiction and was temporarily adopted without opportunity for public comment. Ms. Hendrickson underscored that Public Health had objected to the rule, both when originally proposed and again when it was proposed to be incorporated into the code language. She stated that the 25 percent rule continued to allow the construction and use of outdoor smoking rooms. She commented that they were nothing similar to what she thought of as a porch. She said building permits had been granted to places other than bars to construct similar rooms. She noted that even the administrative rule had not been truly enforced as enforcement only occurred in response to complaints that were signed and submitted in writing. She asserted that workers who were likely to complain were not likely to sign such a complaint. Martin Jones, 2300 Parkside Lane, said he was a practicing internist who had worked with the Tobacco Free Coalition of Lane County four years earlier to pass the ordinance. He wished to speak specifically against the administrative rule. He felt the rule to allow covered smoking areas undermined and ~polluted" the original intent of the ordinance which was to protect workers and other non-smokers from the ~awful effects" of environmental tobacco smoke, otherwise known as second-hand smoke. He reiterated that there was scientific consensus about the health impacts of second-hand smoke to non-smokers, such as heart disease and emphysema among many. Mr. Jones noted that four years earlier he had cited a study that proved there to be an increase in cancers and heart attacks among bar workers, bartenders, and wait staff. He stated that working in a bar with smoking areas increased the probability of developing angina or heart disease, heart attacks specifically, by 30 percent. He attributed this to platelet aggregation caused by inhaling cigarette smoke. He explained that the smoke caused platelets to ~glom up" and clog arteries. He said scientific evidence suggested that even eating in a restaurant with a smoking area increased the possibility of heart attacks. He stated that recent evidence had led the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to notify all practitioners across the country, as a warning, that even small doses of cigarette smoke could be a precipitant to heart attacks. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session