CC Minutes - 09/26/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

council, at the very least, grandfather in existing outdoor smoking facilities. He stated that no employee or customer complaints had been heard as a result of exposure to environmental smoke. He underscored that no one felt anyone should be subjected to secondhand smoke. He wanted the council to work with both sides of the issue in order to work out some alternatives to consider and perhaps arrive at standards all sides could accept. Jill Landon , 3990 Donald Street, said she worked in the restaurant and bar industry for 16 years. She quit smoking nine years earlier. She did not believe that she had been subjected to secondhand smoke. She related that she worked while pregnant and co-workers covered the smoking area so that she would not have to be exposed to smoke. She noted that most of her co-workers were smokers. She thought making the ordinance more stringent would affect her income negatively because it would reduce business. Ms. Landon believed that Eugene had already taken progressive action to limit exposure to smoke. She wanted Eugene to “stay progressive and allow people to choose their own pleasures and vices.” She added that placing smokers outside sometimes caused problems for neighborhoods. Alexandra Sianis , 1975 Hilyard Street, stated that she owned and operated a bar and restaurant since 1977. She said her business was struggling with survival due to the no smoking ordinance. She thought the councilors displayed passion on many issues, but had not done so with the smoking ban. She recalled that the initial intent of the ban was to protect employees from smoke, but no councilors visited these establishments and talked to proprietors to find ways to accomplish this protection without taking the rights away from those who smoke in designated smoking areas. She declared that 80 to 90 percent of bar and tavern employees were smokers. Ms. Sianis said it was simple to designate one person to enter a smoking area in the case of an incident. She noted that the smoking area in her business was a non-service area. She opined it was clear that the ordinance language sought to eradicate smoking altogether and was not merely centered on the protection of employees. She asked what had happened to freedom of choice and compromise. Ms. Sianis felt the council did not know or care about the “huge impact” the ordinance had on downtown businesses. She suggested that the council ask employees what they wanted. She averred that these employees would not have jobs in the future because more businesses would close. Dr. Glenn Buchanan , 2283 Avengale Drive, stated that he was an oncologist who treated several hundred patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer every year. He underscored that cancer could have a devastating impact because the condition itself, as well as some of the treatment strategies, could lead to physical impairments, emotional problems, and financial difficulties. He noted that many patients died of cancer in spite of best efforts made to cure the disease. He said he was commonly asked what caused the disease and how it could be stopped. He remarked that there were no simple answers as there was a complicated interaction between genetic factors and environmental factors. However, Dr. Buchanan averred that one of the most important and most preventable risk factors was exposure to tobacco smoke. He listed a dozen different cancers that smoking was associated with. He pointed out that secondhand smoke had been known for 20 years to be a contributing factor to cancer and that some cancers developed years or even decades following the last exposure to smoke. He stated that many of his patients who died of cancers related to smoking did have a personal history of tobacco use and others had only limited use or no personal use but significant exposure to others who smoked. He maintained that while people had the right to smoke and assume the associated risk for themselves, it would be irresponsible to fail to protect the rest. He averred it was a not an issue of liberty, rather it was an issue of public health. 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session