The proposed law to control tobacco smoking in San Angelo is still a work in progress. The San Angelo City Council on Tuesday directed city staff to develop an amended version of the proposed smoke-ban ordinance to address concerns about the ordinance’s potential effect on businesses. The council, according to the City Charter, has 30 days from Tuesday — the ordinance’s first public hearing — to vote on an ordinance. “There will be adjustments made to the language to pursue respecting private property and issues along those lines and then to see if we can do that in a way where everyone can agree,” said Mayor Alvin New.

Council members listened to more than a dozen people share their views on the smoke-ban ordinance, a version of which will be put to a vote in November after city staff negotiates with Smoke-Free San Angelo, the group that submitted the ordinance petition.

If an agreement is reached on an amended version of the ordinance, the council will vote on the amended version of the ordinance and the group is required per city charter to request that version of the ordinance be put to a vote.

If an agreement is not reached or if the group rejects city staff’s proposal, the council is still required to vote on the version of the ordinance the group puts forth within 30 days of the public hearing. If the council rejects it, city charter allows the group to bypass the council decision and request its preferred version of the ordinance be placed on the ballot.

Lisa Burger, the group’s spokeswoman, said the group is open to negotiations but does not want sweeping changes. “I want to be true to the people that signed the petition,” she said.

City Manager Harold Dominguez expressed “cautious optimism” about the potential for reaching an agreement. “I think anytime council gives us direction, I think we’re hopeful that we can accomplish something, so we’ll have to wait to see how we do during those discussions,” he said.

The council’s direction stemmed largely from concerns raised during public comment, including the ordinance’s requirement that tobacco shops and other businesses that receive 80 percent or more of revenue from tobacco sales and that are connected to other businesses or properties must install a ventilation system if they want to continue to allow indoor smoking.

Mimi Staha, owner of Colonel’s Pipe Shop, said she would be willing to install a ventilation system to remain at her current location in Stadium Park shopping center but requested that her business be exempt from the ordinance.

The views expressed during public comment fell into two main camps. About half of the people who spoke — including representatives from the group who submitted the petition for the ordinance as well as various health organizations, high school students and some business owners — said smoking is harmful to health and that it is an infringement of people’s rights to subject them to secondhand smoke in a public place.

The other camp, which included mostly bar and other types of business owners, said disallowing business owners from being able to decide whether to allow smoking is an infringement of the business owner’s rights as a taxpayer and private sector entity. Many in the latter camp acknowledged the dangers of secondhand smoke and said they personally choose not to frequent businesses that allow smoking but an ordinance banning smoking in all public places would be constitute the taking away of a basic freedom.

They also argued that anyone who doesn’t like to be around smoking has the choice not to go to businesses that allow it. One speaker said sometimes there isn’t a choice, pointing out that she can’t take her children bowling because Stadium Lanes, the only bowling alley in town, allows smoking.

Council member Charlotte Farmer said both her parents and her husband died from cigarette use but she didn’t agree with part of the ordinance requiring the city to partake in public education efforts, which she described as a “budgetary item.”

Robert Banskter, general manager of the Days Inn and Rodeway Inn who lost the Single Member District 1 council seat to Paul Alexander in this month’s city election, expressed concern about how the ordinance would conflict with a corporate requirement that 25 percent of his hotel rooms allow smoking. The ordinance proposes a staged process for hotels in which 20 percent of the rooms could be smoking units for a period before the hotel went smoke-free, but the ordinance says smoking rooms cannot be adjacent or conterminous with nonsmoking rooms — a requirement Banskter said would be impossible to work around.

“This is a private sector issue,” Banskter said. “It should be left up to the ownership.”

James Bennett, who identified himself as a smoker and small business owner who sells tobacco, said he often doesn’t consider his friends’ rights to clean air until after he lights up and that he intends to continue to sell tobacco but that he doesn’t “believe you should be able to go out and smoke in public wherever you want.”

“I don’t believe that smoking, whether we allow it in the public or not, is going to affect the long-term success of any business,” he said, adding that the primary reason he supports the ordinance is because many of the people secondhand smoke affects are children who will not be able to vote on the ordinance when it appears on the ballot in November.

By Kiah Collier
San Angelo Standard-Times

Five years have passed since the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control went into effect (Feb. 27, 2005). The FCTC, the first treaty negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization, has 168 parties and covers 86 percent of the world population. Nevertheless, tobacco products remain the cause of serious health damage, including cancer and cardiac and pulmonary diseases, and hampers fetal growth.

On Feb. 25, the health ministry issued a notice to prefectural and municipal governments, calling on them to make public spaces nonsmoking areas in principle. Although the notice does not provide for punishment of violators, it is a step forward in protecting people from secondhand tobacco smoke.

The “WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2009″ calls tobacco use “the leading cause of preventable death,” adding that it is estimated to kill more than 5 million people each year worldwide. It warns that if current trends continue, by 2030 tobacco will kill more than 8 million people annually the world over, and could kill a billion or more people by the end of this century. In Japan, more than 130,000 people each year die of health damage related to tobacco use.

In 2004, the Diet unanimously approved the FCTC and Japan became the 19th country to ratify the treaty. But Japan is lagging behind in controlling advertisements for tobacco products, using visual images on packages to warn of possible health damage from using such products, raising the sales price of tobacco products and preventing the inhalation of secondhand smoke. Japan needs to rectify this situation as other countries are pushing more aggressive smoke-free policies.

Raising the tobacco tax and abolishing the tobacco business law — whose purpose has been to nurture the “healthy growth” of the tobacco industry — are important. A 2008 WHO survey shows that in terms of progress in smoke-free policies, Japan was second to worst out of five categories, while Canada and Britain were ranked in the best category.

FCTC guidelines call on the parties to the treaty to take legal steps by the end of February 2010 to totally ban smoking in indoor public places and indoor workplaces. The health ministry’s Feb. 25 notice apparently takes this into consideration.

The notice declares that it is scientifically clear that secondhand smoke causes health damage. It reminds local governments that the health promotion law, which went into effect in May 2003, calls on managers of places where people gather to take necessary measures to prevent secondhand smoke.

Because the law has not led to sufficient efforts to prevent secondhand smoke, especially in restaurants and workplaces, the notice says that in principle, smoking should be totally banned in spaces used by many people and that clear notices should be put up to win over the understanding and cooperation of people who visit such places.

The notice lists places where smoking should be totally prohibited in principle: public facilities such as schools, government offices, hospitals and social welfare facilities; entertainment facilities such as theaters, museums, game centers and outdoor sports facilities; commercial facilities such as department stores, shops, banks, restaurants and drinking places; public transport facilities such as bus terminals, airports and ferry terminals and railway stations. Trains, buses, taxis, ships, aircraft, hotels and offices are also listed.

The notice says that measures to prevent secondhand smoke should also be taken in outdoor places where children are expected to gather.

At the same time, it says that in places where a total ban on smoking is “extremely difficult,” appropriate measures to prevent secondhand smoke should be pursued in view of the structure of the facilities and the needs of users. It says measures must be taken to prevent tobacco smoke from a smoking area from entering a nonsmoking area.

Although the notice has no coercive power, a total smoking ban should be carried out in such places as hospitals, government offices, schools and public transport. Companies also should take steps quickly to protect employees from secondhand smoke. A 2007 health ministry survey shows that 56 percent of the polled suffered from secondhand smoke at workplaces.

There is resistance to a total ban on smoking from operators of drinking places and inns and hotels where drinking parties are held. But they should be aware that there are many customers who do not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke.

Importantly, the notice underlines the need to disseminate information on health damage from tobacco based on evidence. It also calls on smokers to be aware that they are exposing other people to tobacco smoke. Health minister Akira Nagatsuma said that after judging the effects of the notice, the government will decide whether stronger steps are needed. Ideally, heightened public awareness will lead to the proliferation of smoke-free places.