Opposed to Garland Smoking Ordinance , by Eric Roberts

 

 

The Proposed smoking ordinance Falls short of being a model Smoking Ordinance that will make a significant impact with respect to the making Garland a healthier vibrant community. I am here to oppose the Smoking ordinances as written.

 

 

I.                 

 

A.        The public is very supportive of smoke free laws; it is only tobacco industry manipulation that creates a sense of controversy about them The Tobacco industry is the only benefactor here in Garland if we as a community accept the proposed smoking ordinance as Drafted. The Tobacco industry is not our Savoir they are the undertaker.

B.        My expectation here tonight is that the City Council & Mayor deem the proposed smoking ordinance not acceptable, My expectation is that Council make a motion to not vote on this agenda, I motion for the council to return the Proposal to Committee for further deliberation until the Ordinance is a model ordinance that would greatly benefit the Community both economically and in Health.

C.          I am here as a Health and Wellness expert to discuss the facts and the shortcomings of the proposed Smoking ban ordinance

 

II.              

 

A.      Adopting a model smoking ordinance will elevate the economy of the City of Garland

 

i.                    The Society of Actuaries has determined that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. economy roughly $10 billion a year: $5 billion in estimated medical costs associated with secondhand smoke exposure and $4.6 billion in lost productivity

ii.                    There is a growing body of law indicating that employers may be liable under state and federal discrimination laws for permitting smoking in the workplace.  Most states prohibit discrimination on the basis of disabilities. 

iii.                  There is growing legal support for assault and battery claims against employers for exposing employees to environmental tobacco smoke. 

 

 The smoking of tobacco, and the use of electronic cigarettes are forms of air pollution and constitute both a danger to health and a material public nuisance.

 

B.      Adopting a model ordinance will improve the overall health of the community of Garland and beyond

 

i.                   Studies concluding that communities see an immediate reduction in heart attack admissions after the implementation of comprehensive smoke free laws, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies concluded that data consistently demonstrate that secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of coronary heart disease and heart attacks and that smoke free laws reduce heart attacks.

ii.                  The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Secondhand Smoke has concluded that 100% smoke free workplace policies are the only “effective way to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace.”

iii.                 The prevalence of eight upper respiratory symptoms significantly decreased during the post-ordinance period among non-smoking bartenders. Smokers reported a significant reduction of symptoms.

 

        Creation of smoke free workplaces is sound economic policy and provides the maximum level of employee health and safety.

 

C.     Passing a model smoking ordinance will make Garland a leader, a City that will be preferred over those that choose not to be a model community.

 

 

 

i.                 1,443 municipalities in the U.S. have 100% smoke free ordinances

ii.               The 2008 North America Hotel Guest Satisfaction Index Study (issued by J.D. Power and Associates) found that, “Nearly nine of 10 guests (89%) say they prefer a smoke free hotel environment in 2008, compared with 79% in 2006.”

iii.             In the 2005 Zagat Survey America’s Top Restaurants®, patrons were asked if a smoke free policy were to be “put into effect in restaurants, would you dine out?” 72% of respondents said their eating-out habits would not change, while 26% said they would eat out more often, versus only 3% who said they would eat out less often.

 

There is no legal or constitutional “right to smoke. Secondhand smoke is a health justice issue. Everyone deserves protection from  health hazards, and no one should have to choose between their life and their livelihood.

 

III.            

 

A.    The City Council needs to declare that the purposes of this ordinance are (1) to protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment; and (2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke.

 

B.    I ask that City Leaders Adopt an ordinance that shall prohibit smoking in all enclosed public/private business places within the City of Garland County of Dallas Including but not limited to Hotels, Bars, Private Clubs, Places of Employment, Golf Courses, Vape shops, Bingo halls and VFW posts.

 

C.    Thank you for Listening!

 

 

 

Partial  credit to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation.

 

 


Comments

Security Check
Please enter the text below
CaptchaImage
Can't read text above? Try another text.