Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Dr. Martin Jones, 2300 Parkside Lane, stressed that the ordinance was "about employee safety" and had nothing to do with infringing the rights of smokers to smoke. He asked how many people would want to work for eight hours in a room in which there was cigarette smoke, knowing the risks that exist. He underscored that the risks were not "made up," rather they were well-known and well-documented. He recalled that the ordinance passed in 2000 involved discussion of an open air smoking area, like a patio and, because of the rainy nature of the area climate, a roof was thought to be necessary. He said making the community business-friendly did not mean allowing business practices that would impair workers health and cause them to be sick. He underscored that bar workers had a higher incidence of death and lung cancer from working in smoking establishments. Dr. Jones felt that when the final administrative rule had been established and the smoking areas had been built, the smoking areas were basically closed areas with little exposure to the air. He stated that there were 40 carcinogens in cigarette smoke and most of them lingered close to the ground, so that even an employee coming in later to clean up would risk a small amount of exposure. He recommended making another administrative rule, one that would dictate that the smoking area should be an area with a roof and no walls. Dr. Richard Barnhart, 91122 Oak Crest Road, said he practiced internal medicine in the community for 20 years. He noted that he recently diagnosed someone with lung cancer whose only risk factor was exposure to secondhand smoke. He agreed that it was a public health issue. He felt that the current administrative rule allowed an enclosed area with minimal exposure to the outdoors to suffice for an outdoor smoking area. He asked the council to "stick with the spirit" of the ordinance crafted in 2000. He felt that anything less than an open outdoor smoking area violated the principles of what was established with the previous ordinance. Dr. Khuram Ameen, 3153 Herald Lane, said he was a lung specialist. He stated that 50 to 70 percent of his business was smoking-related. He quipped that he should be handing out cigarette packets to everybody and encouraging them to smoke so he could be in business. However, he believed that when it came to life and health, the standards should be different than just money and business. He related that every day he treated people with first and secondhand smoke related issues. He reiterated it was a well- known fact that secondhand smoke caused a lot of problems. He related that he treated asthmatics who were exposed to smoke because they worked in sub-standard environments and were afraid to complain because they were afraid oflosing their jobs. He felt someone should stand up for those people. He pointed out that it was not only the patient who suffered, but family members as well. He said every time he had to tell someone they were dying of a preventable disease though they themselves had never smoked, it was not an easy task. He stressed that lung cancer killed more people than breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer combined and the only thing medical experts knew that would stop it was to avoid smoking. He believed people should have the right to smoke but they should not have the right to infringe on the rights of non-smokers. Dr. Raymond Englander, 774 Kristen Court, a neurologist for 27 years and Medical Director of Stroke Services at Sacred Heart Medical Center, stated that smoking was directly related to strokes and heart disease. He said strokes were the third leading cause of death in the United States and the leading cause of disability. He averred that tobacco products were a "huge risk factor" for stroke. He noted that Oregon had one of the highest rates of stroke in the country. He underscored that there was no longer a scientific debate on whether smoking was hazardous. He pointed out that the costs and increases in death and disability due to smoking could now be calculated as well as the costs to the economy from ill workers, loss of life, and extended illness. He stated that these were numbers that could be calculated with a fair amount of accuracy. He averred it was well known that without regulation, restaurant and bar workers had 50 to 60 percent more smoke byproducts in their lungs and hair than other workers. He asserted that MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 15